|
I have been mere inches away from the original Shackleton whisky during its thawing and knowing the people involved in this process both in Scotland and in NZ, this is a whisky (and story) that actually deserves the hype it received. As far as being a good approximation of the malt that Shackleton took to the ice, it is as close as you'll ever get to tasting the real thing. I'll never have the privileged of knowing first hand, but I have tasted plenty of the replica and also several different Glen Mhor (the distillery the original Shackleton's whisky came from) and I know that Richard Patterson has done a pretty spectacular job of recreating it.
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
It's highly unlikely that mould in the warehouse has any significant effect on the taste of the whisky or all whiskies that come from particularly mouldy warehouses would have a similar taste, which is not the case. Still, the warehouses at Springbank do smell pretty damned good.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Why do you say that? Presumably there is more than one kind of mold, and presumably more than one factor can contribute to taste. There are far more factors that contribute to taste than a bit of mould growing in a warehouse - it's not in contact with the whisky and it doesn't grow on or in the barrels to any significant extent so it's unlikely to have very little effect at all. kidsafe posted:Not all distillery storehouses are as extreme as Springbank's. Most are quite clean and stored in modern climate controlled facilities. I can't think of any warehouses in Scotland that are climate controlled, poor yanks must have huge power bills.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Finlaggan and Ileach aren't a house brand. Basically what happens is distilleries like Laphroaig and Caol Ila realize a young cask isn't developing how they want OR they've overestimated future demand, so they sell them off to independent bottlers. Like Biglads mentioned, a bottle from one year might have malt from a different distillery than a bottle from the next... That's not quite how the independent bottling scene actually works. Given how many casks a big distillery (like Laphroaig) has, checking every cask is a) logistically expensive and time consuming and b) unnecessary due to the consistency of spirit and wood they have. Casks are very seldom sold on an individual basis from a distiller to a broker or independent bottler direct, they almost always come as a 'parcel' of x number of casks either mature or as freshly filled casks. If there is a situation where a sample is drawn from a particular cask, if its particularly bad it will simply end up re-racked into a more active cask or dumped into a large vatting where it has no effect. In the case of things like Smokehead or Finlaggan, the companies that produce the brand will have a relationship with someone (broker or a distillery owner/group) that will provide them with a fill contract or mature stock, which is becoming increasingly difficult to get these days. quote:Ardbeg does find itself in one of these 'secret' malts too...at least we think so. It's widely accepted that it's the distillate in Smokehead. Highly unlikely these days for it to be Ardbeg as they (to my knowledge) have no filling contracts with any independents and are not currently supplying to any blenders. This doesn't mean that the occasional cask shows up from early 1997/98 or prior, but no one in their right mind is going to do a no age statement unbranded Ardbeg, that stuff is just far too hard to come by. The only blend / unlabelled product I can think of that actually contains Ardbeg is Big Peat, and even then it will be in fairly small amounts. Interestingly, Smokehead (no age) and Smokehead 18 come from two different distilleries.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Can anyone tell me anything about this bottle I just found? A whisky of that age with such a high ABV is usually a bit concerning, it means either poor wood or (much less likely) unusual maturation conditions such as very warm ambient temperatures. Longmorn would likely have been filling at 'still strength' in that era so at most it's come down 10-15%, which isn't a good sign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Evaporation has very little to do with the quality of the barrel really and more to do with local humidity and temperature. I have a 22 year old Bunnahabhain from Exclusive Malts that was down to 43% in its cask by the time it was filled in a bottle. At 22 years in cask and such a weak ABV, you expect such an offering to be silky smooth or have a strong wood influence. Nope, neither. This is incorrect. The cask is an extremely important factor in the strength of the spirit. A whisky that has reduced to 43% ABV within 22 years is exceptionally unusual, and is a result of an issue with the cask rather than environmental aspects. Any whisky that has matured 'abnormally' is usually (not always) something to be wary of, especially when you're forking good money over for it. However, a good example of a whisky that has held is strength remarkably well, even after prolonged maturation, would be the Glenfarclas 105 40 years old - it is absolutely spectacular. kidsafe posted:Are you trying to suggest buying used barrels and reusing barrels multiple times is more costly than having coopers/robots make fresh barrels for every drop of new make? I doubt that very much. I can see the one-time cost of a former sherry butt being more than that of a new bourbon barrel due to size and availability, but that's why they use those butts for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even more fills. It is efficient and cost-effective to use a new barrel for every filling. American distillers doesn't have to worry about re-conditioning, checking and repairing re-fill casks, they just grab a new one off the shelf and fill it with spirit. Also, American coopers do not need to create multiple casks sizes, unlike the Scots whose barrels vary greatly in volume and variety.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:You love the Glenfarclas 105 40yr, but without batting an eye you're shrugging off that IB Longmorn. Sounds like you are picking and choosing sides without admitting that it's more about storage climate except for extreme cases. And it wasn't an issue specific to my Bunnahabhain cask as there were several bourbon barrel selections around that age to choose from that all had ABV within 2-3%. Where exactly did I shrug it off? I said that you need to be wary of whiskies that show an unusual strength (high or low) for a particular age. Of course there are exceptions and Glenfarclas is a notable example. quote:I'd love a reference for your side of the barrel cost discussion. You are suggesting that hiring loggers, mills, coopers is more efficient than hiring cooperages to recondition barrels. We could probably just e-mail someone in the Scotch industry who does use brand new oak barrels, like John Glaser, and find the real answer. I never suggested that its cheaper to make new barrels than use second hand ones - I was simply pointing out that there is more to meets the eye when it comes to a comparison of cost between American bourbon and Scotch whisky. For example, check out the difference in cost between corn and barley. There's no need to get defensive my friend, let's just relax and have some fun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:You said it was efficient and cost effective... It really is neither of those things because it expands the supply chain in both directions. Not only do you need fresh wood from a source, but you also need someone to buy your endless supply of used barrels. I would say it's more efficient to be have ready supply of new barrels made locally than it is import, check and re-make casks in another country. America has to wait x days/months/years long for a cask to be made and ready for use, Scotland has to wait at least x + y where y is the maturation time of a Bourbon or sherry. It's obviously cheaper to buy something new than second hand, but I did say cost effective, not cheaper. quote:Sure there are various other difference contributing to the final cost of bourbon and scotch. Maturation time, coffey stills vs. pot stills, grainbills, transport costs, taxes, etc. I'm just wondering why you quote-split a section focusing on the use of new vs. used barrels. Isolating one aspect of production from the overall picture gives a skewed view of where the actual cost to the end product comes from, plus, it stimulates conversation such as this!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:My opinion only, but Bunnahabhain 12 is a much better whisky than any of the young Bruichladdichs. It's nutty, oily/viscous, and while the barley isn't dried over peat smoke there are traces of Islay (from the water source?) Not entirely true - Bunnahabhain's barley for their standard expressions is actually peated to around 2-3ppm and it also comes from the mainland. Margadale spring has only trace levels of peat in it as well. Terroir and whisky is still not fully understood and Bunnahabhain is a good example of this, as is its neighbour Caol Ila. duckstab fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
derp posted:Well i liked it by the end of the glass. Just more subtle than I'm used to. Bunnahabhain's non-peated variants are certainly not as intense as some of its Islay brothers, but that's also part of its charm for me. For availability and price, Bunnahabhain's older whiskies are hard to beat as well, with most independents kicking out some truly astonishing cask selections in recent years. I'd second someone else's comment that the latest Bruichladdich bottlings are great, the various single-barley, organic and 'laddie' bottlings are all exceptionally good quality malts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Yes. Compass Box sometimes uses new oak barrels. Ardbeg Alligator used heavily charred new oak barrels. It's just not that common because new barrels are more costly. I'm sure there are others. The reason virgin oak barrels aren't often used for Scottish whisky is not down to cost, it's primarily down to fresh oak having very high concentrations of things like vanillin which are mostly unwelcome and can dominate the spirit. There are only a few examples of fully matured virgin oak whiskies that I can think of, and two of them happen to have come from Dr. Bill Lumsden (Glenmorangie & Ardbeg). The Ardbeg Alligator really works for me, but i'm afraid Ealanta from Glenmorangie was a bit of a disaster, stuck somewhere uncomfortably between a bourbon and a Scotch. Anyway. Lots of talk about common whiskies at the moment, who has been naughty and picked up something serious lately? biglads, i'm looking your way...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Causation vs. correlation. You've come to expect Scotch whisky to taste a certain way because everyone started using bourbon barrels decades ago. The decision to use ex-bourbon barrels by all those distilleries was of course a financial decision. Virgin oak maturation simply doesn't work well for the significant majority of spirit produced in Scotland. If virgin oak barrels were seen to be worthwhile, more distilleries would be using them and the increased cost of production would be passed on to the consumer (which is sometimes done with sherry cask matured whiskies). Can you name a distillery that regularly fills spirit into virgin oak casks in Scotland? I can name but one. duckstab fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Mar 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Speyburn usually gets pooped on in this thread, but I occasionally defend it. You just have to have a different set of expectations for $20 whisky. If you like Old Pulteney, AnCnoc, Balblair, etc. Speyburn will taste familiar. I've seen you remark on this a few times before - what makes you say that those distilleries taste similar? They're all quite different.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I guess they're all a bit oily, IIRC. I think the mouthfeel of whisky is a really under appreciated aspect of drinking whisky, I think it's one of the most important factors for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
kidsafe posted:Not so much oily as in they have the same almost cloying, melon-like sweetness. I assume the mash/wort at each of these Inver House distilleries uses the same type of barley and yeast. There are considerably more factors at play than just barley and yeast. Between Balblair, Knockdhu and Speyburn they all have different specs for their malts, their peating levels are all different and their fermentation times vary hugely (Speyburn is much, much shorter than Balblair or Knockdhu). That's just the start of the differences between them, but if you find them similar in taste between them, that's fair enough, but none of the similarities you find are attributable to the fact they're owned by one company. What's your dram at the moment kidsafe? I'm trying out a 1992 Bruichladdich Valinch called 'El Classico'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
Chuck Biscuits posted:I bought a bottle of Hibiki 12 the other day. It's my first Japanese whisky and is a completely different animal than the Islay malts that I've been drinking lately. It's incredibly delicate and floral with lots of honey and fruit. The nose is almost like sticking your face in a bunch of honeysuckle. Supposedly it's a blend of over 30 single malts, and partly aged in plum liqueur barrels, which I'm sure contributes to it being so fragrant. I'm going to keep an eye out for other Japanese malts now since I'm enjoying this one so much. 30 single malts? There are only 9 or so single malt producers in Japan, you've got to wonder how they came up with that number... The Hibiki 17 is well worth the jump in price if you can find it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:And all of those distilleries that get expanded will lose in quality. What makes you say that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:This sounds like brandy but more It's a very strange thing to do as beer and whisky worts are totally different, with the mashbills and malt specifications being very different between the two. It's illegal to do in Scotland and I can't see the attraction to the process myself, I guess the new world distillers are just trying to find a point of difference, but I don't see the longevity in it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:Does anyone have any experience with the latest bottling of Highland Park 30 year old? I'm considering that for a birthday bottle this year, or maybe a Port Askaig 30yo CS, which is a complete shot in the dark based on the quality of the 25yo. Any other suggestions of bottlings up to around $300 are welcome. Probably won't go big but once this year so I'm looking for something that would leave a lasting impression. I've been a bit underwhelmed by the official HP releases of late, especially the older variants, but that's just me. Do you have a website that lists some of what's available to you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:I buy mine mostly through the net since the selection especially in IBs is much wider, and the local monopolized vendor can rarely beat UK prices. http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com for example. In that case you've got heaps of options, but if you fancy something interesting, check out the 1986 G&M Secret Stills bottling they've got (it's a Talisker).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2013 10:18
|
|