Malt Fascination

Years ago my sister went on holiday to the Dominican Republic and brought me a bottle of this rum. I never got around to tasting it in its pure form and before everything is used in cooking, cocktails or chocolate milk, I thought it time to sit down and pour myself a glass of it.

Its apparently a five year old rum.

Nose:
Sweet molasses with a light edge of spicyness and something vegetal. Plants is the idea I get from it, but also a hint of caramel.

Taste:
A little dry but with the ‘real rummy sweetness’. A bit sugary, but apart from this I don’t get many distinct flavours. Very lightly spicy, maybe.

Finish:
The finish is rather short and slightly alcoholic. It seems like it starts to fall apart a bit.

Its not a bad rum, but I suggest drinking it and not having it sitting around for half an hour before sipping. It does start to fall apart then and there will be some gluey flavours then. One of drinking, not actively tasting. I can imagine ordering a bottle while hanging around with mates and having a laugh, though!

Ron Brugal, 40%, about €20 at Master of Malt

Nose: 6
Taste: 6
Finish: 3
Overal experience: 7
Price/quality: +2

Total: 24 points

The Balvenie 21 is one of the more expensive whiskies in Ian Buxton’s 101 Whiskies to try before you die. Usually I’m not a big fan of The Balvenie, since I find their flavour profile a bit too smooth, a bit too dull. Of course, I am never reluctant to try anything I haven’t tried before (of whisky that is).

This whisky has been finished in Port casks to give it a bit more character and depth of flavour. Or so they say!

Nose:
With this whisky, the excitement is in the details. At 40% it is a very smooth scent, never offending and not the slightest alcohol burn. You really have to try to get the port scent out of it but there is a slight tinge of a tawny port nuttiness and sweetness to it. There is some wood and honey, which is rather normal for a Balvenie. A few farmy notes are present as well. Straw, but smooth and complex.

Taste:
Soft, light and smooth, with a hint of dryness. Also lightly spicy with a honey sweetness to it. There is a bit of spice in there as well. Quite ‘warm’, as in, this would be right at home on a dreary autumn day on the couch. Which means it fits right in this summer in Holland…

Finish:
The finish is long but not too complex. Not many new things to explore, which might have something to do with the 40% ABV. A little wood, a little honey, some sweet spices and here I get some tawny port hints again as well.

Although this is a very (too?) smooth dram, I really love it. The flavours are layered and there is a lot to explore. It never challenges you but it does reward some attention. I kind of love this dram, which surprises me!

The Balvenie Port Wood 21 year old, 40%, about € 92 at Master of Malt and others.

Nose: 9
Taste: 9
Finish: 8
Overal experience: 8
Price/quality: +1

Total: 35 points

A few weeks ago, I made a few whiskey infusions, based on Fighting Cock bourbon. The choice was made for Fighting Cock since it was the cheapest one I had sitting around that I also like.

I got the idea of making infusions based on some articles I read on it, I believe Dave Broom wrote about it in one of his columns for Whisky Magazine. Also the release of Jim Beam Red Stag reminded me to try some of those things.

I made four different infusions after having tried one with lime (with Ballantines). That one didn’t turn out too good, since it tasted like LOADS of lime and alcohol, exactly like a cleaning product.

The four things I used to make these infusions were ginger, chili pepper, mixed peppercorns and wild strawberries. The resulting colour was quite surprising, since the bourbon took on a very dark hue from the peppercorns and strawberries. The other ones turned rather pale. The strawberries themselves were almost white after four weeks in bourbon, they started out bright red.

Note: These infusions had been infusing for way too long. I planned to have them sitting stewing for about a week, but I didn’t have time to sit down properly and have a go at them until yesterday, which was four weeks down the road.

Ginger
This one was pure ginger. It smelled like those pink sliced ginger pieces you sometimes get in a sushi restaurant. I didn’t get any hints of bourbon anymore and thus consider this a big failure. It might be nice if you infuse it for only a few days so you add the ginger to the bourbon, instead of letting it conquer the Fighting Cock. Its pretty spicy though!

Wild strawberries
This one is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. The bourbon is still very much present, but there is a slight vegetal note in the background. Like there are some plants in it, instead of a fruit. Of course, those wild strawberries don’t have much flavour of themselves anyway. The taste is pretty nasty. Like you’re licking the bourbon of plants after working in the garden. Really bad. Failure number two.

Chili pepper
The smell of bourbon is still present, but the chili is more pungeant. Almost like stewed bell peppers. The flavour is quite spicy but in this case the bourbons makes it a bit more smooth. Never expected that! This one has definetly been infusing for too long, but I might be on to something if I keep an eye on it and test every day…

Peppercorns
I didn’t expect this one to do much, since you usually crush the peppercorns to release their flavour. Quite the contrary! I could smell the pepper upon walking into the livingroom. The bourbon adds a perfumy flowery scent to the pepper. This one is too nasty to even taste. I didn’t want to ruin my palate for the rest of the night.

Conluding, I can say this is an utter failure. I will try the ginger and chili pepper again, but only for a few days before trying it. The pepper and strawberries were nasty, and will not be repeated. I will also be trying more sweet ingredients, since the savory ones were all quite doubtful.

It was sometime last year that the news of Maker’s 46, from Maker’s Mark hit the streets. This was a variety of the regular brand in the fact that they matured the regular one with some extra French Oak staves in the barrel. Its not legal in Europe to follow this practice as the guys at Compass Box found out with their Spice Tree whisky.

At the time of tasting this whisky I didn’t look up what the difference was with the regular Mark, which, in hindsight, I think was smart to come to an unprejudiced review.

Nose:
Lots of soft spices with a hint of burnt wood, bread crust and cinnamon. In the end if you take a slow long long sniff, there is a hint of glue. This is a problem that lots of bourbons have, so it doesn’t really surprise nor trouble me.

Taste:
Rather dry at first with dusty grain. The taste is rather full, though. All regular Maker’s Mark flavours are increased (as far as I can remember). The spices are there again, but are more clearly pronounced, as is the wood.

Finish:
The finish is long and ful of flavour. A little astringent, spicy and again the singed wood.

A very nice dram. I love the fact that this kind of innovative variety isn’t killed off by any association or law. I think I might be getting a sample (or bottle) or regular Maker’s Mark soon, to compare this one to.

Thanks to Antoine for the sample! Loved it!

Maker’s Mark 46, 47%, about €40, but rather hard to get.

Nose: 8
Taste: 7
Finish: 8
Overal experience: 8
Price/quality: +1

Total: 32 points

Another sample I tasted after getting it from Pats Wine & Whisky in Groningen. Again, only 1cl, which is tiny, but just enough to get an impression.

This Macduff is a bottling by Scott’s Selection from 1978, bottled at 29 years old and 44.4% ABV. Recently I tried a couple of very good younger Macduffs by the Creative Whisky Company. I thought it would a smart idea to try some more and see how they hold up around 30 years old!

Nose:
Rather closed apart from a definite nutty tone. Walnut I think. It has that mustiness. Marzipan, but also pine resin. Rather sharp and musty. Like a damp forest?

Taste:
Dry and spicy. Rather unexpected, I didn’t see that dryness coming. Quite some wood, almost no fruit apart from maybe some peach. There is not much happening.

Finish:
The finish is a lot more fruity but also has some woodiness, bread and even something creamy. Almost like cheese…

Its just not my kind of dram I guess. There are a lot of flavours I usually like, but there’s almost no consistency and the flavours I get from this are just a few. I like something more to be happening, or something like this but more consistent.

Macduff 1978-2007, 44.4%, Scott’s Selection, €83 at Pat’s Wine & Whisky.

Nose: 6
Taste: 5
Finish: 4
Overal experience: 5
Price/quality: -1

Total: 19 points

This single cask sample was given to my by Fulco, about a year and a half ago. Still hadn’t gotten around to tasting it, but that seems the regular excuse these days. Back-log.

I’ve tasted a couple different Yoichi Single Casks, not in the least at the Dutch Whisky Connection stand on several festivals. As far as my records go, this one was a new one, and it sure is a new one on the blog.

Nose:
It starts off with shoe polish and the rubber noses of those all stars shoes. There also is quite some alcohol burn with a lot of wood and smoke. Not necessarily peat smoke, more a bonfire kind of style. The sharpness lingers for a long time but the hint of rubber dissipates quickly. Insense and tea.

Taste:
Very dry, but that might be the alcohol. The flavour builds up rapidly to a typical yoichi flavour of wood, pepper, coal smoke with some spiciness. I do miss a bit of fruit in here, but that might be charming as well.

Finish:
Not very long, but of a medium length. This is the first part of the whisky that loses the alcohol burn. The flavours are similar.

With water the balance of the whisky is much improved and all flavours are more prominent. A very old fashioned dram. Mizunara cask?

An odd Yoichi to me. Most of those single casks were sherry wood or bourbon casks, which imparts a little bit of fruitiness. Still, although there are many other flavours that make up for that. It didn’t really need making up, since they are odd flavours but not bad ones if present in moderation. Still, a bit over the top in wood and shoes.

Yoichi Single Cask Warehouse 15, 1991-2005, 64%, #129.504, used to cost around € 130, I think

Nose: 6
Taste: 8
Finish: 8
Overal experience: 7
Price/quality: -1

Total: 27 points

Yesterday I wrote a short piece on The Mash Bill, the marketing laden brochure from Kentucky Bourbon Distillers. The Distillers that do not distill…

I thought it nice to do something similar on the real mash bill, from which they take their name.

In the USA there are a lot of distilleries that use a multitude of grains to produce their whisky. Of course, there are some restrictions to what you can and cannot use, but those are more focussed on quantities than on the type of grain. For example, to produce a bourbon you have to use 51% corn. The remaining 49% can be a mixture of other grains, but most typical are rye, malted barley and wheat.

Of course, there are those small craft distilleries that try lots of different things. This can vary from using 100% malted rye for a ‘Single Malt Rye’ or using somewhat more obscure grain types like buckwheat, brown rice or triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye).

Officially it doesn’t really matter what you use, as long as you record it. This is where the Mash Bill comes in. The Mash Bill is a record of the exact grain mixture that you use for making a wort. It is a mandatory facet of brewing and distilling.

Above I mentioned a 100% Rye mash, which Old Potrero uses in some of their products, but this is not usual. Apart from the desired flavour there is always the efficiency of the mashing to consider. Usually in bourbon and American whiskey there is at least a little bit of malted barley in the mash. This is done because malted barley is very high in maltose, a grain sugar, that is used to create alcohol in the next step of the process, after the wort is made. When only rye is used, the mash becomes very sticky and glue like which makes it very hard to use.

In the case of a smoother tasting bourbon the wheat goes up, and when a more spicy character is desired, more rye is used.

I just had to share this one with all of you. Chances are that most of you have already seen it, but here it is anyway:

A while ago while paying a visit to DH17 slijterijen to pick-up half a case of the Mackinlay’s Blend, I also got a copy of The Mash Bill from Elise. At first I thought it was a very focussed bourbon magazine from Kentucky, but upon actually reading it, it turns out to be a very cleverly designed marketing brochure for Kentucky Bourbon Distillers.

Kentucky Bourbon Distillers is not some association, but a bourbon and rye marketing company / bottler that releases a lot of small batch bourbons like Noah’s Mill, Willett and Johnny Drum. Apparently they produce a periodical brochure with all kinds of historic articles, tasting notes and information on the distillers, their lineage and what’s happening around the ‘distillery’.

I think this is one of the smartest marketing tricks I have ever seen. Especially since it is not very obvious that its a marketing trick. The articles read like a magazine and since the company uses a lot of different names for their products, its not too clear that your reading a very commercial magazine.

Another smart thing to not make the link too obvious between the company, their products and the magazine is the fact that its very very hard to find on the internet. Of course, the words magazine and mash bill pop up all over the sites of other whisky magazines which helps.

Note: I adjusted the text based on Bas’ comment below. If you read about the company on their website and in the magazine you get the idea that they are a distillery. They are not. They release bourbons and rye whiskies under different names, but do not distill themselves. Confusing, because some of their brands are distillery names of places long closed and gone.

After having tasted about 200 whiskies in this year alone, for some reason I seriously never had a Macallan 18, sherry wood. I tasted the Fine Oak series front to back, and had some 10 year old Macallans from about all decaded since the 50’s, but not the 18. Shame on me, since I was seriously missing out on something good!

Nose:
Slightly nutty with heaps of orange and orange marmalade. Soft chocolate with a hint of wood in the background.

Taste:
Quite full flavoured with a heap of fruity sherry and some black pepper. A small hint of singed wood with some spices as well. Tea? It gets a bit sweeter after a while.

Finish:
Real sherry Macallan. Lots and lots  of flavour, with coffee, cocoa and fruit. Sweet citrus but not only that. There is also a lot of other tropical fruits to be found here.

This is one cracking dram. Unfortunately they switched to the Fine Oak range at Macallan, after decades of promoting their brand as ‘Golden Promise barley and the finest sherry casks’ they went for bourbon barrels and cheaper/higher yielding barley as well. Bummer. But I am certainly seeking out a bottle of this stuff! Well, until I found the price I was…

Macallan 18, 43%, OB, distilled in 1976 (not sure if this is right), samples available from Pats Wine & Whisky for €7,50 (1cl) and a bottle for €360

Nose: 9
Taste: 9
Finish: 9
Overal experience: 9
Price/quality: -2

Total: 34 points