Irish Single Malt, 14yo, 2000-2015, 51.5% – The Nectar of the Daily Drams

Posted on 21 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

The older sister of the Irish whiskey I reviewed yesterday. Another undisclosed whiskey from the emerald isle, two years older than the earlier one and priced at a similar level. I believe yesterday’s bottle initially set me back 60 bucks, and this one was 65. Maybe it was 65 and 70. Quite affordable in the current day and age.

There’s not much to add to the description since it’s undisclosed. No idea what distillery it comes from, we can only guess. Technically there’s nothing wrong with it, except that the next time you want to buy or avoid a similar profile, you have nothing to go by.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sniff:
Quite sharp alcohol on the nose initially. Lots of straw, but quite crisp and much more oak influence than the 12 year old. White pepper, and lots of vanilla.

Sip:
The palate is warming and less sharp. Dry, and lightly spicy. Lots of oak and cask influence and it gets a bit sharper after a couple of seconds. Lots of vanilla and some apple crumble. White pepper and ginger.

Swallow:
The finish is crisp again, and this is where fruit really starts showing. Melon, pear. Sweet with vanilla.

Well, this is a bit of a deception. It would probably be a fine dram on its own, but compared to the 12 year old this one is a let down. Where the 12 year old was a fruity and flowery in all the right ways. This one is mostly cask influence with heaps of vanilla and white pepper. A shame there the ‘Irish’ character is not really recognizable and suppressed by the oak.

But, then again, on its own it’s a fine dram. There’s still enough to be enjoyed if you’re tasting this. There’s just a tad too much vanilla, and I miss the typical lightness I expect (or hope to find) in Irish whiskey.

Irish Single Malt, 14yo, 2000-2015, 51.5%, The Nectar of the Daily Drams. No longer available.

Posted in - Irish Whiskey, Bushmills, Cooley, Undisclosed | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Irish Single Malt, 12yo, 2002-2015, 52.9% – The Nectar of the Daily Drams

Posted on 20 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

Irish Whiskey is hot these days. The focus lies mostly on the 1988-1993 era for some reason, but occasionally there’s something else popping up too. That’s quite nice since the aforementioned time frame can get pretty expensive now it’s becoming more and more popular.

For a bottle share I tried getting the three Irish single malts that The Nectar of the Daily Drams released in a batch a couple of months ago. Unfortunately the 26 year old was already sold out. I did manage to get a sample of it, which I still have to taste.

So, the bottle share only consisted of the 12 and the 14 year old. Respectively from 2002 and 2000. I finally managed to try them just before our holiday and I finished them on the camping in Brittany. There are worse things to pack, I imagine.

Unfortunately, the distillery remains undisclosed. I expect it to be either Cooley or Bushmills, since I don’t think any others were making single malt whiskey around the time.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sniff:
It’s a massive fruit bomb from the start. Quite recognizable as an Irish whiskey, if you’ve had some before. Quite unlike scotch. Some vanilla, wild flowers, straw, roses, rose hip. But also banana, pear, and almost no oak to speak of.

Sip:
Quite sharp from the alcohol, but not overpoweringly so. Gentle flavors. Grain, fresh fruit, flowers. Pear, baked apple, banana. Roses and daffodils. Quite rich, actually.

Swallow:
The finish is long and consistent with the palate. Lots of fruit and flowers, some vanilla and a touch of oak.

While this is a very light dram, there’s a certain sweetness and richness that makes it very interesting, and very delicious. The oak hasn’t overpowered the spirit in any way and while there is a touch of vanilla, it doesn’t push anything else back at all. A gorgeous whiskey.

This whiskey does exactly what I love about Irish whiskey. It’s light, summery. Lots of fruit and flowers, but not in a perfumy way. I didn’t get any FWP notes, knowadimsayin?

Based on the flavor profile I still don’t have a clue to either Cooley and Bushmills, although I have more experience with Cooley tasting like this, but then with peat and named Connemara. Interesting…

One of the added benefits of this whiskey is that it came in a reasonable plain bottle, but with a cool label. It only cost € 60 or so, so that was pretty rad as well. I hope Daily Dram are going to put out more of this stuff at a similar price point!

Irish Single Malt, 12yo, 2002-2015, 52.9%, The Nectar of the Daily Drams. Still available at the Dram Brothers Shop

Posted in - Irish Whiskey, Bushmills, Cooley | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

BenRiach 2000, 54.3% – OB for Whisky Weekend Amsterdam 2014

Posted on 17 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

Apart from the general crazes with similar club bottlings and private bottlings, there are always some BenRiachs popping up for festivals and such. (those crazes, by the way: around 2009 everyone bottled Bowmore, two years ago everyone bottled GlenDronach, and the year before that it was Ledaig)

BenRiach is a distillery that is hugely popular for private bottlings since a lot of different styles. From peated to unpeated, a million different cask types and a wide variety of ages. Normally there is some good stuff in there, although they also miss every once in a while. Some of the wine casks aren’t all that, and I remember a 1989 Virgin Oak finish that I found way too bitter.

Even though you can’t really trust every single bottling that comes out, in general I consider it a top notch distillery since some of the most awesome whiskies I’ve had come from BenRiach.

This bottling was bottled in late 2013 for Whisky Weekend Amsterdam. A festival that takes place in January each year for a couple of years now. I’ve never been (yet) but since I’ve heard insanely good reports, I might have to change that when 2016 rears its head.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sniff:
Smooth and creamy, with lots of oak. After that a huge blast of vanilla comes around, as well as coconut and other nuts. Strangely, I also get a hint of cleaning spray, lime. Some alcohol too.

Sip:
The palate is sweet but has loads of alcohol and a strangely bitter taste from the oak. Vanilla, dryness and heat. It’s a very hot whisky, even though there’s not that much alcohol here. Nuts, coconut, peanut.

Swallow:
The finish is surprisingly thin, but still very hot. Lots of alcohol, vanilla and chalk.

I could more or less have copy-pasted each part of the tasting notes, since this whisky is the same in each step. There’s no development going on, and apart from the simplicity, it’s just too fierce. There’s too much heat from the alcohol, even with some water added.

I didn’t know the specifics of this dram when tasting it, apart from ‘BenRiach 2000’. I guessed it would be a virgin oak cask again, since the oak influence is huge. It turns out to be a bourbon cask, but the bourbon didn’t mellow it all that much.

In short, not my cup of tea. The flavors aren’t that nice, and it’s too simple. I didn’t finish the glass.

BenRiach 2000-2013, 12yo, 54.3%, bottled for Whisky Weekend Amsterdam 2014. Available in the Whiskybase Marketplace for € 76

Posted in BenRiach | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

American Whiskey, Bourbon & Rye: A Guide to the Nation’s Favorite Spirit – Clay Risen

Posted on 16 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

It’s been a while since I did a book review. I’ve been reading a lot less compared to last year. That is partially so since I generally am too tired to stay awake and read, so I watch TV instead. Also, the books I’ve been reading (mostly The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan) consists of books averaging some 800 pages, compared to last year’s much thinner novels.

During our recent holiday in Brittany (in which I regrettably didn’t visit the soon to be closed Glann ar Mor distillery) I got around to reading some more again. This book by Clay Risen I borrowed from whisky buddy MZ, who’s been diving into American whiskey recently.

On the cover of the book it says the book contains Profiles, Ratings and Tasting notes. That actually is just the second part of the book. The first 80 pages or so contain an ‘introduction’. This means there are bits on the history of American whiskey, from the first whiskeys, through the Whiskey Rebellion, up to Prohibition and the recovery after that, all up until the current craft distillery boom.

The first chapters are interesting but don’t offer much new information that’s not available anywhere else. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you’ve not read much on the subject yet.

The chapter is very well written and is very easy to read, which is not always the case in whiskey history books. I enjoyed reading everything I already read in other books once again. Maybe also because I want to gather the facts and know them by heart, and I am not good at learning facts quickly. I have to re-read stuff a couple of times.

But, where not many facts were new to me, there was a remark on the whiskey shortage during World War II. Since America was still recovering from prohibition and the great depression, the distillery closures of WWII were not doing the industry any favors. Mr. Risen pens down a remark from a witness that many people were buying up whiskey because of the shortage, as an investment.

I never read that before anywhere, but it’s an interesting statement. Mostly because it indicates that hoarding whiskey is not something new, as some folks try to make us believe.

Anyway, the second part of the books consists of tasting notes and short introductions of whiskey distilleries and NDPs (Non-Distiller Producers). I have to admit that I more or less browsed this part instead of thoroughly reading it.

The distillery profiles are interesting, but not something I need to know from all kinds of brands that are either common knowledge to me, or so obscure this side of the pond that it’s not interesting since we can’t get the hooch anyway.

Tasting notes are, obviously, just that. Someone’s opinion of a dram that might or might not suit your own profile. In this case I found that Risen’s palate is different from mine as there were quite a few discrepancies between my rating and his.

What I did like about the notes, however, is that Clay Risen does not really care about public opinion. Contrary to many whisk(e)y writers, he dares to go against the grain and state some whiskey fanatic’s fandom of distilleries and give all their drams a ‘Not Recommended’ rating. In this case, this is about Balcones. He very much writes honest opinion and this does not reflect the general consensus. Kudos to Mr. Risen.

So, my thoughts on the book:

If you’re new to American whiskey and want to know the relatively summarized history of it, plus if you’re into tasting notes as a guide into the style, this is highly recommended.

If you’re going through drams for a couple of years and have read previous books on American whiskey this one might be nice, but there isn’t much new information available.

Still, I’d not regret buying this if I actually did so.

The book is available for some 15 bucks from Amazon.

Posted in - American Whiskey, - Book | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Laphroaig 1998, 14yo, 53.9% – The Whisky Fair

Posted on 15 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

Well, that was a lot quicker than I expected yesterday night!

I tried this Laphroaig some three weeks ago before I went on holiday. I just didn’t get around to scheduling it to pop up during our trip and I am just writing this review now.

Laphroaig is a bit of a weird one in my collection. It’s one of the distilleries on Islay that I like and care about (as are Lagavulin, Bowmore and Caol Ila…). However, I seem to not find any epic drams of the distillery that I want to buy. Even stranger, the bottles that I had last year, I mostly sold.

The distillery is one of those places that has fallen a bit for the marketing gimmicks of releasing increasingly younger whisky with all kinds of fancy names. Most of the Cairdeas releases are in that category and while there are some decent drams in it, a lot of them are quite alike and not much to write home about. Unless you’re really fond of spirity, sharply peated, high strength whiskies.

Luckily, there’s a lot of whisky available for independent bottlers and those somehow do release a lot of Age Stated whisky. Most of it still is about 12 to 16 years old, but that seems to be a sweet spot for Laphroaig.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sniff:
Lots of peat and smoke. Salt, sand, grass and hay. All quite typical. Rotting barley, straw. Berries and unripe black berries. A strange combination of dead grass and unripe fruit. Very sweet.

Sip:
The palate starts a tad thin, but becomes dry and spicy quickly. Grass, straw and  heather are there, as you’d expect. Some oak, saw dust. A bit like a saw mill, with some machinery scents. Vanilla, oatmeal and shortbread.

Swallow:
The finish is sharp and full. Quite sweet with more vanilla than before. Custard and lemon curd. Hay.

It’s a bit of a strange one, this. There are some really nice flavors, and some that I don’t really like. It’s a tad too sweet for me.

Also, what’s an indicator of how much I like this whisky is this. I wrote the tasting notes before I went on holiday, and had completely forgotten about the whisky itself. That tells me I shouldn’t buy this bottle, if I inclined to do so.

So, in short. It’s not a bad dram, but it’s not great either. And all in all it’s a bit forgettable.

Laphroaig 1998, 14yo, 53.9%, Sherry wood, The Whisky Fair. It’s available at Jurgen’s Whiskyhuis for € 85

Posted in Laphroaig | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

A bit of a quiet spell…

Posted on 14 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

So, the last two weeks I was on holiday. I spent a fortnight in France mostly drinking cider. The blog posts that popped up then were pre-written before I left.

Now I’ve been back for a couple of days and have not written anything yet (yesterday’s post was also pre-written, but just scheduled wrong) and I have not been back at blogging yet, except this wee post.

The way things look at the moment, it might be a little while. I’ve not been in the mood yet. I’ve also barely had time or inspiration even though I’ve got some tasting notes lined up. I’m more focused on getting my 5th Birthday Bash in order, and working on club activities (meetings, the magazine, that kind of stuff).

Also, I’ve been looking into doing another mezcal bottle-share, buying a cask of spirit with friends, work, and many other things. Like in the new year when I had some posts on where I’m taking my whisky collection, buying and all that. After each longer holiday I do these things too, but in a more general way.

This does not mean I am considering stopping this blog. I like it far too much for that. This also doesn’t mean I’m giving up on the boozy stuff that’s been going on in general. I’m just trying to down size things a little bit. More peace and quiet. Maybe a tad more just sitting back and enjoying a drink. Like the last drops of Rosebank 25 that I’m downing right now.

So, I might be back tomorrow, or the day after. Maybe next week. But it won’t be long. I just have to get my bearing again.

Posted in - News and Announcements | 1 Comment

Littlemill 1990, 22yo, 56% – Whiskybase (40,000 bottles on the wall)

Posted on 13 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

I’ve traded some Whiskybase samples recently, and wanted to try this wee Littlemill of theirs. I know one of the guys who runs the shop is a huge Littlemill fan and with the releases of the last couple of years a lot of others have joined him.

I had not tried this when it came out since I was not one of those huge fans. I tried some official bottlings years ago which turned off from the distillery. It appears, however, that Littlemill needs to be twenty-something years old to show its true potential.

It probably started with the first Archives release some years ago in the Blind Tasting Competition that they got back on my radar. Shamefully I had not bought a single bottle of this distillery ever. I might have to change that but with the still hit and miss status of the distillery, I dare not spend 150 bucks on something I’ve not tried before.

Anyway, this release was done for the Whiskybase Community milestone of having 40,000 different bottles in their database. That is a huge number of whiskies, but they’re still going strong as they just released the celebratory bottling for number 60,000. Obviously, things have slowed down with all ancient releases being in the system by now. Or, at least, most of the known ones.

Image from Whiskybase

Image from Whiskybase

Sniff:
Lots of malt at first, with vanilla, oak and quite some punch. There’s pepper and a light fruitiness. Vanilla custard, apple crumble and some grassy notes.

Sip:
Soda water at first, with pepper and oak to follow it up. Quite sharp and dry. Spices, pine and mint. It gets a bit fatty after a while with lots of vanilla and lots of white oak. Very traditional.

Swallow:
It leaves a dry but fatty layer after you swallow it. Spicy with that pine note showing up again. Quite long and slightly flowery.

This is a nice whisky, but I find the nose to be quite ‘default’. By that I mean there’s so much vanilla and white oak going on that it completely overpowers the distillery character resulting in a nose that can belong to the whisky of a dozen different distilleries. I prefer my whisky with a bit more discerning character to show its provenance.

Having said that, the palate and finish are pretty great. I love the addition of pine to the vanilla and white oak of the nose. It’s quite traditional, but very good at what it does. But in the end I prefer the bottling they did for hitting 50,000, which was that teaspooned Balvenie.

Littlemill 1990, 22yo, 56%, Bourbon Hogshead, Whiskybase (40,000 bottles on the wall).

Posted in Littlemill | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Age vs. NAS round 5: Macallan Fine Oak 10 vs. Macallan Gold

Posted on 3 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

At the time of tasting I didn’t know what these were of course, but it’s an interesting experiment for sure. If I would’ve gone into this tasting with knowledge of the samples, things might have been different since those Macallans come with a reputation.

The Macallan Gold from the recent color scheme whiskies or whatever they named the series, together with Amber, Ruby and Sienna. Gold is supposed to suck. I hadn’t tried it before although they tried to sell me one as an exclusive when I hopped through the shop two years ago.

Then again, Fine Oak also comes with a reputation of actually being quite shitty Macallans and the first step of Macallan’s decline in popularity with whisky geeks. It came as a bit of a surprise after years of marketing ‘the best Sherry casks and only Golden Promise barley’ they suddenly had bourbon casks and Image from Whiskybasesupposedly inferior barley, and suddenly that was the big innovative thing.

And, lets be honest, great Macallans are sherried Macallans. The old ones preferably.

Sample 1: Macallan Fine Oak 10, 40%

It’s quite spicy on the nose, with a lot of malt. There’s some straw and some grass. Minerals, not bad but a tad thin. The palate is also slightly mineral like. Slightly waxy with oak. Some fruits too, banana and apple. The finish is consistent with the palate and fairly rich.

Image from WhiskybaseSample 2: Macallan Gold, 40%

The nose is more flat than the previous one, but also a bit warmer. Grains, but watery. The palate is slightly gritty with some sawdust. Relatively rich and dry with oak. Sweet and slightly spicy. The finish is rather good and quite long.

I preferred the second one. I preferred the Macallan Gold. So much for reputations. Well, I didn’t finish any of the samples. These were not really bad whiskies, but neither of them was particularly interesting.

The Macallan Fine Oak is, in my opinion, an overpriced series of whisky that tries to fill its older brother’s shoes but doesn’t manage. The Macallan Gold is quite acceptable for a supposedly inferior NAS. It’s cheaper than the Fine Oak and therefore would have my preference, since I also think it’s a tastier whisky.

In the end, I think for good Macallan we have to look at the indie bottlers, or be willing to overspend.

Short review: I didn’t finish either sample. The Macallan Gold is better than the Fine Oak 10.

Macallan Fine Oak 10 years old, 40%
Macallan Gold, 40%

Concluding the Big Blind Tasting we can state the following, from my experience after these comparisons:

NAS is not necessarily better than entry level whiskies with an age statement. Neither is it worse. Also, I’m not very good at guessing entry level drams and NAS whiskies side by side. But, nobody will be surprised by my lack of blind-tasting-abilities.

Posted in Macallan | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Age vs. NAS round 4: Cardhu 12 vs. Cardhu Amber Rock

Posted on 2 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

The penultimate round of the Big Blind Tasting by Oliver Klimek brings us to a distillery that is barely ever encountered from indies, and neither are there many official bottlings.

I think I have seen an 18 year old apart from the 12 and this Amber Rock. I also have to admit that I’ve not tried any Cardhu in ages. It’s one of those standard bottlings that’s most likely been in everyone’s collection at some point, but for most of us that was it.

It’s funny how some distilleries are huge in one country and barely amount to anything in another. I know Glen Grant is huge in Italy, Aberlour in France and Cardhu seems to be the market leader of single malts in Spain. Honestly, I wouldn’t know which brand is biggest in The Netherlands. Probably Glenfiddich, like almost eImage from Whiskybaseverywhere.

Anyway, this Speysider has been around for ages, but it’s Amber Rock compatriot has only been introduced early last year. I honestly have no idea to how it was received.

Sample 1: Cardhu Amber Rock, 40%

On the nose this whisky quite malty, and very gentle. A touch of oak with some apples and pears. The palate is thin, but slightly sharp and a tad bitter. It gains some weight after a couple of seconds but is still smooth. The finish is back to the malt. Some spices. Boring but not bad.

Image from WhiskybaseSample 2: Cardhu 12 years old. 40%

This nose is a lot sweeter with more fruit. A lot less flat. Spices, oak. The palate has some pepper, oak and spices. It’s quite a bit sharper and slightly rough even. The finish is peppery, and a lot sweeter than the palate. Pepper, oak, spices.

Because of the spiciness of the second dram I thought that was the younger one. The more spirity one. I made the mistake of attributing these spices to the spirit instead of the oak. So, once again I was wrong. I did prefer the second dram, however. It shows more depth and is quite a bit more interesting than the first one, which was fairly boring.

I’m not entirely sure what else to say about these whiskies. The most interesting one, the 12 year old is a whisky that’s interesting for people who’ve never had it and are just starting to get interested in our favorite drink. The other one I’d not recommend. It’s more expensive and hasn’t got a lot to offer.

Short review: both went down the sink. The second one only because I had to go through tomorrow’s samples too (the last round of this event).

Cardhu Amber Rock, 40%
Cardhu 12 years old, 40%

Posted in Cardhu | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Age vs. NAS round 3: Glenlivet 12 vs Glenlivet Founder’s Reserve

Posted on 1 July 2015 by Sjoerd de Haan-Kramer

We’re already halfway through the Big Blind Tasting as Oliver Klimek has dubbed this experiment. At first I was very enthusiastic about joining it, but when the samples arrived I couldn’t really get myself to try them. Mostly because I don’t want to drink too much and there is so much to try that’s a lot better than entry level stuff that we tried a decade ago.

Of course, I had to put all snobbery aside to see if my tasting skills actually amount to something. The club‘s Blind Tasting Competition has told me it doesn’t when it’s random. Now it’s less random and I am only at a 50/50 score.

The third round was a very standard Glenlivet 12 and their newest counterpart, the Founder’s Reserve. This is an interesting one since contrary to the previous two rounds where the whiskies are allowed to coexist, in this case the 12 year old is being phased out from certain markets due to supply problems (and money, most likely).

Image from WhiskybaseWhile I have never bought much Glenlivet (some indies, a Nadurra here and there) I actually quite like the distillery’s product. I think I’ve never had one that was bad, and while not all of them are overly interesting, it’s a very consistent product of a company that seems to deserve being one of the larger ones.

Sample A3A. Glenlivet 12 years old, 40%

The nose didn’t have much vanilla, which might happen in those standard releases. Lots of citrus fruits, sweet with lemon curd. Also some spicy herbal notes, heather mostly. The palate is smooth and rather sweet. Fruity with more lemon curd. Heather, soft bread and oak. The finish is a little more spicy, pepper. Less lemon than before and of medium length.

Image from WhiskybaseSample A3B. Glenlivet Founder’s Reserve, 40%

This nose has more oak and is a bit sharper. More spirity with mostly oak, and a hint of vanilla. The palate is gentle with some pepper and oak. It does have some sharpness, and is rather simple with a touch of grass. The finish suddenly has more weight and shows a hint of chocolate.

In this case I didn’t really have a preference. The first is a very well made dram with a high level of consistency. The second is more spirity (and obviously the NAS one, in my opinion) but also has some interesting bits. It’s less consistent but not bad at all.

So, no preference and a guess to which is the NAS whisky. In this case I think we might be lucky that the Glenlivet 12 is not being pulled from Dutch markets, as far as I know. So far only the United Kingdom and Germany are getting cut from their supply.

I am not entirely sure, but I think at the time of tasting I thought this might be Glenlivet since the 12 year old is a quite lemony dram, as I seemed to remember. Good stuff, this!

Short review: I drank both of them.

Glenlivet 12, 40%
Glenlivet Founder’s Reserve, 40%

Posted in - News and Announcements | Leave a comment