Malt Resistance

2006-09-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

Malt Resistance is Back!

It has been over a year since Malt Resistance has been up and running. Hurricane Katrina was the main culprit to be sure, and its arrival in our lives brutally confirmed that there are things slightly more pressing and urgent than Single Malt Scotch. (On that note, I found it rather unsurprising that very little if nothing was done -- or mentionned -- forKatrina victims in the Whisky World. Further confirmation that it is indeed as small, insular milieu.)

In the aftermath of it all, I found myself left to sip a blend (my malts having been left behind in New Orleans) at night in a cellar which I called home for the better part of last year. The blend wasn't bad, perhpas a 'best bet' when it comes to standard No Age Statement blends. So we are starting over aren't we? A best bet, great value for money, good taste with an islay backbone I would venture. Have you guessed? White Horse. (Which is fitting since I tasted the bottle in the basement of the house of a great lady who was kind enough to put me up for free a few weeks after Katrina --sight unseen no less!)

There will be more entries in the future. Here's a sampling:
--A detailled review and grade for Yamazaki 18 --perhaps the best stuff I've tasted all year.
--A nostalgic voyage back in time when Michael Jackson used to rate distilleries (not just their whiskies). We'll look at his grades for those of you who don't have the 2nd edition of his guide on hand! One thing needs not be pondered for too long: why did he stop?!
--A quick Panorama of the developments in the Whisky world besides the above.
Cheers to all!

Does Jim Murray have any shame?

2005-05-08T11:38:00.000-07:00

*
Since we at Maltresistance pride ourselves on our independence and outspokenness, here is the lowdown on one of the worst frauds in the Whisky industry. To wit:

Why would anyone consider Jim Murray an authority on anything, much less whisky, absolutely baffles me. Jim Murray is in the running for world's greatest fraud and he's got an ego to match. For starters, he modestly titled his collection of badly written (but often quite funny) tasting notes the "whiskybible", I suppose that in his own eyes this makes him the WhiskyGod....

I've always wanted to believe that Jim Murray was a good guy, a disinterested Whisky writer whose goal was to popularize Whisky in all of its incarnations... But everytime I try to give him credit, or take his tasting notes seriously, hard cold facts come in the way. For example, the other day I found out that the 3 brands of corn Whiskey made by Heaven-Hill distileries (Dixie Dew, JW Corn and Mellow Corn) were and have been for a long time, one and the same whiskey, same age, etc... Yet, Jim Murray reviews them as three seperate products and gives them wildy different grades and notes in his maltoporn compendium full of "impossibly-badly-written-its -funny-tasting-notes" and inuendos. (That's the aforementionned whiskybible in case you missed it!). To sum up, that's 3 different tasting notes, 3 different grades for the same whiskey!!! If that hilarious example doesn't bring home the fact that Jim Murray is a bufoon and a sorry excuse for a taster, nothing will.

If his hignessness (the greatest whisky writer in the world as he constantly refers to himself in his own book) comes anywhere near my town on one of his pontification tours I'll make sure to ask him why he gave great reviews and grades in Whisky Magazine to whisk(e)ys of a certain japanese distillery without at the same time disclosing to us WM readers that he was on their payroll as a 'consultant'... Perhaps that's the real reason he no longer reviews whiskeys for that publication?

And how about his giving near-perfect grades to whiskies "he" was paid to help create? Ardbeg 17 comes to mind, but there are many others... He also was on The Balvenie's payroll and at least one U.S. distillery but made sure that no one reading his rave reviews of these distilleries products were aware of his blatant conflict of interest. And then as a cherry on the cake, he goes on and on about how 'fearless' and independent he supposedly is on his book. I kid you not, the guys has absolutely no shame, not one ounce of it.

I always wonder if when he's about to give very high grades to whiskies he was paid to help create, the notion of recusing himself even cross his mind?

Doubt it... This insecure whacko who talks of wife swapping in his 'book' and basically says all Cognac is caramel-colored crap, needs to learn how to write (or get a real editor; I know I'd like one...), he also needs to take an extensive course in ethics, and --last not least -- he urgently needs to humbly thank Michael Jackson on his hands and knees for making his own career a possibility. Until then, he's nothing short of a disgrace to the whiskyworld.

Dram of the Day

2005-04-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

*
Now for something truly different: an old style barrel strength 100% rye Whisky. Its called "Old Potrero" though it is in fact pretty young. Let me state at the outset that I am not usually inclined towards Rye Whiskey or Tenneessee Whiskey or Bourbon. This however, completly won me over. Here's why:

Old Potrero, Distilled 12/31/1997, Bottled 07/14/00.
Essay 7-RW-ARM-6

Nose: Very sweet. Alcohol. Calvados notes, then persistant strong banana aroma. 'Bananes Flambees au Rhum' desert somewhere smart. I know this talk of bananas makes it sound like a Beaujolais nouveau is being reviewed but this flavour blends in marvelously with the others.
Mouthfeel is viscous, mouth coating. Bananas in Rum again, with honey and young oak. Tropical fruits behind. It is also the rythm with which the flavours hit you, everything is perfectly synchronized.
Finish is warm and supportive and never burns --amazing at 124.2 proof.

A unprecedented and magnificent experience. This could be a new genre all together. [90] Old Potrero is something all whisky afficionados have to try at least once at the risk of missing out on one of the most exciting development in American whiskey history.

I still can't get over this discovery. None of the heavy, almost sweaty, sweetness of Bourbon here. Old Potrero is truly different than all other ryes on the market. Partly because the legal requirements to make a rye whiskey are pretty counter-intuitive. If you just have 51% rye in your spirit you can call your Whiskey a Rye whiskey!

Compare Old Potrero to any of the well known ryes on the market (Wild Turkey, Jim Beam, Old Overholt ) and you are comparing two completly different drinks. American whiskeys are virtually all a mix of some sort, corn, rye, barley.... Legaly, the word Bourbon or Rye or Tennessee Whiskey or Sour Mash never require the sort of disclosure that is required of Single Malt Scotch... and therefore exact ingredients on the label for the consumer to see was often missing for the american consumer. Not with Old Potrero. You have got to try it, even if only for curiosity's sake.

About its young age you ask? Well, I think 100% rye whiskey clearly doesn't need to get that much age to be great. Further, lets remember that the option for American Whiskey should not necessarily be to reflexively imitate Scotch and come out with 15,20 year old all over the place....Like with most Islays, I find Bourbon to be at its best at no more than 12 years old.

As this experience has been unexpectedly rewarding, we hope to pursue our exploration of new world whiskies, with the other ryes on the market, and the few remaining corn whiskies available as well. This should be interesting and different. Stay tuned.

Just found out that Macallan is a Franchise

2005-04-12T13:45:00.000-07:00

*
I found another gem, this time in msn's web site. A Jon Bonee reports about the Macallan's lauching of the Fine Oak, and the marketing rationale behind it. More truth in this small modest piece than in a lifetime subscription at Malt Advocate Magazine... Check it out. [My comments in brackets.]

“There was a lot of soul searching,” says Mark Izatt, brand manager of single malt whiskeys[sic] for Remy Amerique, importer of The Macallan, as the whiskey[sic] capitally calls itself. "We're not trying to change the world, but we would like to draw newer drinkers into the Macallan franchise."

[I didn't know that The Macallan was a franchise, just like Coke or McDonalds --stupid me, I thought it was a Single Malt!]

In the past decade, makers of premium brands — BMW comes to mind — have unveiled more downmarket, entry-level offerings that give consumers the pride of a luxury brand without the price.

[Lovely marketing talk here. Quick translation: the Fine Oak is a downmarket version of The Macallan. Thanks for the newsflash. The writers goes on to say that the Macallan is nevertheless a pricey drink --no kidding.]

“We could've gone in the route of new flavor Coke,” Izatt says.

[Love the analogy Izatt! Seriously, I don't really know what this idiot brand manager is trying to say here. Was creating an entirely new Macallan, one part Sherry one part Fine Oak, with no alternative available to consumers a serious option? Considering the reaction of those who can't buy the Sherry Macallan anymore, Izatt's vision would have really been a disaster.]

After four years upholding the renowned Macallan taste profile, it was [Bob Dalgarno's] first opportunity to put his own imprint on a Macallan whiskey[sic].
The whiskey[sic] itself comes from batches that were either sherry-aged but didn't taste like traditional Macallan, or from bourbon-aged casks that otherwise would have been sold off to makers of blends, who prize the Macallan whiskey[sic] as an element in their Scotches. Presumably, Macallan figured it could make more money using its own whiskey[sic] in a new way than simply selling it off. And it should be noted that bourbon casks are less expensive than sherry.

[Ah, well, unlike the Sycophants at Malt Advocate Magazine, at least the folks at msn dot com say it like it is! In short: Macallan wanted to make more money, so Dalgarno, eager to make his mark apparently, decided to feed the public a variation of Macallan that either "didn't tast like Macallan"(!), or was only fit to be sold for blending in the past.]

For many, Fine Oak now only choice

2005-04-11T19:51:00.000-07:00

*
In an interview with a malt aficionada, Bob Dalgarno Macallan's Whisky maker cum Marketer extraordinaire was quoted as saying:

"...the Fine Oak whiskies are merely being presented to the consumer as an alternative(...)"

However Macallan issued an e-mail to consumers, dated 02/24/2005, where they stated:

"In many markets Fine Oak will be the only [Macallan] available(...)"

So which is it, Mr. Dalgarno?

If one hoped that this little nugget would put an end to the fable that the "Fine Oak" range was introduced for anything else than increasing market shares, one would be sorely disapointed. The marketing machine that is the Whisky industry doesn't stop at a lie or two, or even at destroying the quality of their products if it means more short term profits.

Case in point, to celebrate the demise of rigor, stringent standards as well as tradition at the Macallan, the industry decided to crown the engineer of the downgrading of the Macallan as "Innovator of the Year." No, this is not a joke, and I've written more on this issue in previous posts.

What is fine oak, anyway?

The 'Fine Oak' malt, meaning Macallan spirit in Bourbon Casks was seen by Macallan (before Innovator Dalgarno & Edrington were running the show) as only fit for going into "no age statement" blends, and certainly not worthy of being bottled as a single....

My, how times have changed. Yesterday's plonk is marketed as today's grand cru. And all the "independent" tasters are along for the ride! Of course its just a coincidence that their books are advertised on Macallan's very own web site.
Who, you ask? Let the dishonor roll begin with Jim Murray (no surprise there) and end on a sad note, with Michael Jackson.

Back to the snake oil: they want us to believe that the fine oak range is composed of extraordinarily refined bottlings. They are not, of course.

For moral support I will quote the early Michael Jackson in a bit of praise, which I bet he now wishes he'd never written:

"Without the sherry, it is not The Macallan."

Though its author doesn't, I still agree with his thought. The real question however, is do you?

Single Malt Classification: A Proposal

2005-04-11T07:28:00.000-07:00

*
A classification of distilleries has been considered and tried many times over. Always with less than satisfactory results. Why?

One reason is that the whisky industry is reluctant to issue a classification, as – sadly – most distilleries are one small part of the parent company’s extensive distillery portofolio. So why would Diaego, or Allied-Domecq for example, shoot themselves in the foot by promoting some of their malts over others? No reason. They actually profit by keeping us in the dark as to which malts are better than others.

Professional tasters have tried and failed resoundingly to establish a credible classification. Why? Because they are chronically incapable to grade malts --distilleries even less so-- on their merits (that, by the way, is the drama of the day).

You see, the tasters' problem is that they are “professionals;” i.e., they have to make a living. And I have come to the conclusion that these tasters are not able to make a living by just writing reviews and articles in the specialized whisky press. Maybe they are just greedy, but I'd rather stick to the first, more charitable, explanation --wouldn't you?

In any case, the sad truth is that some (all?) professional tasters supplement their income by hiring themselves out as ‘consultants’ with various distilleries. And then, they go on to write glowing reviews of the whiskies of their employer in Whisky Magazine or other publications, and --surprise!-- they write glowing reviews of these products! The tasters in question, virtually always fail to voluntarily disclose their tie to the distillery whose product they are reviewing of course. Jim Murray did this while working at Whisky Magazine (with the Balvenie to name only one), and we only know about this because of Murray's own arrogance... God knows how much this kind of corruption is going on right now. (This conflict of interst is one of the many secrets de polichinelle in the Whisky Industry; a subject on which any objective observer could fill a large book).

Just imagine the outraged reaction if people found out that Robert Parker was on the Payroll of the makers of Cheval Blanc. Sadly, in the Whisky World this type of conflict of interest is tolerated and the industry goes to great length to ensure that the general public is not aware of it.

I too have come to accept this coruption, in that I rarely take tasters' grades and comments seriously these days, and certainly their attempts at a classification is to be taken with a ‘massive’ pinch of salt.
Another problem with past classification attempts is that they often tried to imitate the categories of the great wines of Bordeaux. Sadly, this just does not work. Some distillers have a potentially great product which they cheapen for commercial reason: see for example, the bland malts the Macallan has been pawning off as ‘replicas.’ So if Macallan is a grand cru classe , this appelation would end up on some pretty bland bottles. That would defeat the purpose.

The Boxing Weight Categories Analogy

A possible answer is to classify the distillery, not qualitatively, but by the ‘size’ or 'weight' of their spirit. What do I mean by size, by weight? I suppose these are a combination of character, strength and individuality. A heavyweight malt is a spirit that is unmistakable. A heavier spirit can take on any type of wood maturation and still be recognizable. A lighter one is easily drowned in the wood.

Needless to say, a heavyweight fight is usually much more fun to watch (and more people pay more to see them), though this is far from being always true.

So the weight categories in boxing are the inspiration. Lets simplify the boxing categories for the sake of this exercise. Lets start with the lightest to the heaviest: bantam weight; lightweight; middleweight; welterweight; lightheavyweight; heavyweight.

Lets try this as applied to single malts:

Bantamweight: Deanston

Lightweight: Dalwhinnie; Glenfiddich; Bunnahabhain

Middleweight: Craganmore; Glenmorangie; Bowmore; Springbank

Welterweight: Balvenie; Aberlour

Lightheavyweight: Glenfarclas; Laphroaig; Macallan

Heavyweight: Ardbeg; Lagavulin

These are nominations of sorts, and are subject to change.

I plan to come up with a complete list and welcome any imput. Of course Malts, like Boxers, can move up or down a weight class. For example, the Macallan lost a weight class when it issued their ‘fINE oAK’ series. (Another Boxing Analogy: the indignity of the fINE oAK episode is the boxing equivalent of Mohamed Ali doing pro wrestling at the end of his career!)

As per usual, all your comments and suggestions are welcome. Cheers!

Laphroaig Liar?

2005-04-09T19:31:00.000-07:00

Just found out that one of my favourite malts of the moment is artificially coloured, presumably with caramel. Now, before I divulge the malt in question, please allow me to address a couple points argued by some consumers eager it seems to be fooled and lied to by the corporate parents of Malt Distilleries (it never ceases to amaze me, but yes, these people exist.)

Typical comment #1: "You can't taste the caramel, so who cares?"

Answer: I am not absolutely (well, I wasn't) sure about whether or not the caramel can be tasted of not. Some tasters say it can be discerned, others say no. I would argue that its presence surely influences other elements in the drink --even if it is not directly noticeable.

But the larger point is that we drinkers are being mislead. A darker malt leads the innocent consumer to expect an older whisky, perhaps even a more rich, sherryed one. But we now know it could just mean it is artificially coloured.

Typical comment #2: "The industry needs to present a consistent product. Colour consistency is part of that, and the consumer expects it."

Answer: The consumer of blends may expect colour consistency, but single malt consumers are willing to give up consistency and other asthetical aspect of whisky in favour of better taste and authenticity. The producer know that (they've probably test merketed this to death), which is why 'unchilfiltered' Single Malts have made their appearence, for example. Though of course most distillers probably still colour their malts, since most countries don't require them to disclose this dirty little secret (this by the way is a direct result of free markets: it really mean the freedom for corporations to lie to us). So, in a nutshell, we malt drinkers know that Single Malts are the product of a region (a terroir perhaps) and are not expecting McDonald like consistency --please don't insult us with that phony excuse any longer.

What made this particular piece of corporate treachery all the more galling was that the --coloured-- product in question was billed as "straight from the wood." This is obviously a falsehood since they had to have added caramel after decanting the whisky. Not to mention the false impression of purity the sentence give the consumer.

Tasting the 'Lying' Laphroaig Cask Strength

All the more upseting is that I love the bottling in question, the Laphroaig Cask Strength 10 years old (OB). It is a Laphroaig concentrate, the parfum of Laphroaig so to speak.
On the nose it has an emphatic medicinal quality, and behind that perhaps a hiterto little noticed hint of sweetness. The whole olfactory experience is shrouded in a pleasent mustiness, the way London is sometimes covered in Fog or New Orleans in humidity.
The palate is undistiguishable from the mouth feel, because it so viscous. What I find so great about this Laphroig is its remarkable texture, even more than its taste. One fells young wood, stange for such a young makt --but perhaps older ones were added. Also the alcohol provides a little sunshine, a little lemony light that breaks through the mustiness. And it goes on for a while. It leaves a long and pleasent aftertaste, which most tasters call "finish." 92.

So what about the caramel, one might ask, and so here it is. After discovering of the alteration --my hearty thanks to the german governement, by the way-- I verbalized some unformulated notion that had come to my mind during previous 'innocent' experiences with the Laphroaig. Just like little indications, clues if you will, that you remember only after you discovered that someone has been unfaithfull to you... I remember wondering why this 10 year old CS bottling felt more sweet like the similarly dark Laproaig 15 year old, sweet like the lighter and dryer 10 year old regular strength... I supsect that the 15 also is coloured, more so even then the CS, which gives it this sweetness that is, come to think of it, oddly un-islay like. Could it be perhaps... the undisclosed addition of caramel? Well, one thing is for sure, we'll never know, unless you are willing to trust the people at Allied Distillers who lied to you about the content of their product in the first place.

Innovator or Hatchet Man?

2005-04-07T08:02:00.000-07:00

After a brief Hiatus, we are back with a recommended site (something to read during the next hiatus) and, of course, a small drama.

Recommended Site

I recently came across Serge Valentin’s whiskyfun, and it is a lot of fun. To be honest, I was at first a little taken aback by the sheer opulence of the man’s lifestyle. I mean an average week reads: "Tuesday, vertical 30+ year old Springbanks tasting; Friday: 1970's bottlings of Highland Park; Saturday: 1960 Macallan crystal decanter series", etc....

Ok, maybe I am exaggerating a tad, but surely this is not a working class connaisseur to say the least (but then again, how many are there?). Add to that, the guy goes out every other night to trendy concerts (and/or restaurants) and travels (mainly to Scotland of course)... But hell, I decided that yes, he obviously has dough, but at least he's enjoying and sharing it to some extent, so all the power to him.

And it is a cool site. Every other day it seems, there’s a new entry and his comments are clever and never pompous. Also his playful tone does not mean that he is devoid of critical faculties when it comes to the whisky marketing --au contraire! He also posts old adverts for booze which are always interesting if you’re in to that sort of thing.

Drama of the Year(!)

Just found out that Bob Dalgarno, the Macallan whisky maker, was named the "innovator of the year 2004" by Whisky Magazine. I don’t know whether to laugh or throw up yesterday night's dram...

Bobby D. may be a real nice guy on a personal level (don’t know the fellow), but lets take a quick, hard look at what 2004 meant for the Macallan. Well, besides its annual 15% price hike, it took one more major step down by giving up their time-honoured tradition of maturing their malt exclusively in sherry casks, and are now selling their bourbon casked whisky – hitherto reserved for blending – as ‘fINE oAK.’

The reason for this development is clearly not a love for innovation –as the good folks of Whisky Magazine would have us swallow –, but is motivated by the Edrington Group’s unrelenting desire for increased market shares whatever the costs.

Concretely, this means -- besides a worse product -- that some markets will no longer be able to purchase the Sherry Macallan (dixit Macallan on their own website), instead they can buy their overpriced ersatz in a fancy bottle. Let's be honest just this once: Bob Dalgarno is not an innovator – everybody knows it – he is a hatchet man for the Edrington Group. The victims? The Macallan, and you and me, the consumers that care.

I suppose this is fitting for our time, after all, (and on a much more tragic level) this reminded me that the head of the CIA – Tenet was his name – who presided over the Weapons of Mass Destruction Misinformation campaign (i.e. lies) was recently given a Congressional Medal of Freedom. [Little political interlude --a la Groucho Marx in Animal Crackers: This must be the American version of Freedom: you know, the freedom of the superstrong, the freedom of the rich to buy, buy, buy; the freedom to lie officialy , to get caught and not care; the freedom to invade other countries and the freedom to make up reasons for it. And last, but not least, the freedom to kill in the name of freedom, of course. Clever! Ah, freedom!]

So, in that world, I suppose I should not be surprised at all that Booby D. is named an innovator, I am just waiting for Jim Murray to be named the ‘most learned and impartial taster of the decade' and everything will fit perfectly!

Marketing Geniuses

2005-03-10T09:25:00.000-08:00

Here’s a quote I came across more than a decade ago. Though not specifically on Single Malt, noir writer Lawrence Block illustrates rather well the mentality that’s behind the changes which are affecting our favored drink:

"I went over and picked up the bottle and read its label. It was eighty proof. All the popular-priced bourbons had been eighty six proof for years, and then some marketing genius had come up with the idea off cutting the proof to eighty and leaving the price unchanged. Since the federal excise tax is based in alcohol content, and since alcohol costs the manufacturer more than plain water. The distiller increased his profit while slightly boosting the demand at the same time (…)"

This is why the proof of SMS has gone from 86 to 80 in many countries, and explains bottles ‘mysteriously’ getting smaller (from 75 to 70cl) a few years back.
It is precisely because the Whisky industry is run by the above-mentioned “marketing genius” that we can forget about Single Malts improving or maintaining their current level of quality. Our time is the dawn of an accidental and short-lived golden age of single malt whisky which began in the late 1980’s.

The Lowering of Standards at the House of Macallan (II)

2005-03-04T12:17:00.000-08:00

“A purposefully traditionalist distillery.” Those are the lofty words which Michael Jackson chose to describe the Macallan and its ownership in the first and second editions (1989-91) of his standard setting work (Complete Guide to Single Malt Scotch, Running Press). These words are no longer used in the later editions, and with good reason.

He was describing the Macallan of yore, a single malt which was exclusively made from “Golden Promise” barley (a low yielding barley which uniquely produces rich nutty flavours), and exclusively matured in Sherry Casks. Those two characteristic which many –including past owners of the place-- thought were inseparable from The Macallan have been done away with progressively, quietly. The fall started in earnest with Highland Distillers' acquisition of the Macallan, and accelerated when the Edrington group set its cash starved tentacles on the distillery. (I am not being fair to octopuses: these corporate groups buy up Distilleries like dictatorships when they take prisoners, some are put in virtual isolation [like Bunnahabhain], and others are publicly executed --that is what is happening to the Macallan.)

What will follow, in the next few months, is a brief review of how the costly tradition of distilling Macallan from Golden Promise Barley was abandoned –and how few journalists or magazines, which cover the industry actually clearly called the owners of the Macallan on it.

The Lowering of Standards at the House of Macallan (I)

2005-02-24T17:58:00.000-08:00

Well, I just received news that as feared (some would say predicted) in earlier posts, the Macallan Exclusively Matured in Sherry Casks will no longer be available in certain markets!

Here's the quote found between obscenely self-congratulatory paragraphs from a mass mailing send to me and inumerable others:

"In many markets Fine Oak will be the only available Macallan"

Yeah, this is true. The remedy? Cross your fingers, close your eyes and hope, hope, that your country is not the part of the "markets" who'se consumer will only be able to get the new, "no-longer-exclusively-matured-in sherry-casks" Macallan!

If you are part of the unlucky millions to see your Sherry Macallan confiscated as it were, I am sure that Whisky-Whore Jim Murray's opinion (as quoted by the Macallan) that the aforementioned release is the best in years, will be real comforting! Oh, and incredibly, there is an add for Jim Murray's new book in that very mass mailing by the Macallan. I guess they have no shame: thanks for plugging our lower quality offering, how about some free advertising? Its high time that this ethically challenged reviewer lost some credibility!

Announcing the upcoming Chronicle of Edrington's lowering of standards at the Macallan

This is the latest instalement of the sad tale of misdeeds, mistakes, and downright incompetent actions commited by the bean counters at the Edrington Group. Motivated by greed, increased world market sales in other words, the corporate officers at the Edrington Group have drastically lowered the standards and sullyed the name of their star product: The Macallan. This is a nasty tale where both the consumer and the quality of the product lose out, but it must and will be told. Stay tuned.

Today's 'Best Bet'

2005-02-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

Herewith a quick entry, today’s Best Bet for taste and value: The Balvenie Single Cask 15 years old.

First off, when buying this whisky you realize that 15 year old whiskies are not really 15 years old. On the bottle this Balvenie the dates of distillation and of bottling are featured prominently. And you will notice if you look at various bottles on the shelves of your favorite store that some contain whisky that is 16, 17, sometimes 18 years old! That’s it for the educational fringe benefit.

Another advantage of buying the Balvenie Single Cask 15, is that you are not paying premium dollars for a Single Cask or Single Barrel, Cask Strength Single Malt. This is perhaps explained because this Balvenie was marketed in the early 1990’s when what was considered the main factor for price was age, not whether it was a vatting or a single cask bottling.

Look around the store: very few other single cask bottling are around, and those that are will be more expensive that the Balvenie Single Cask. Now that the fashion has turned, expect this bottling to either go away, or its price to be substantially increased… You've been warned!

How to Build a Cellar On the Cheap!

2005-02-20T10:26:00.000-08:00

Well, the Drama today is that after perusing a number of Single Malt Websites and Discussion Groups, I’ve come to realize that most single malt amateurs are people of substantial means. You know, wealthy, rich, well-to do, etc… Just read the posts on the whisky discusion sites ("did you try the Macallan 30 years old?") or check out the pictures of the “small collections” people post on the web: tens upon tens of unopened, expensive, bottles that you know are not all going to get opened! What a waste.

What follows is my modest attempt at democratizing Single Malt connoisseurship, since the days when all excess wealth will be confiscated, and larger collections reduced for the common good, are sadly far off. So in the meantime, I have decided to share -- for the benefit of my readers -- a few tips on how to build a respectable cellar on the cheap.

It all began when I "once uponed" 6 or 7 bottles of Springbank 21 at a Supermarket in the outskirts of New Orleans a couple of years ago. As I was staring at the proud, if dusty, boxed bottles I remembered reading in Pip Hill’s excellent book “Appreciating Whisky” that Springbank would not be produced in the years to come. While normally I would never consider spending more than $85 on a bottle (I can hear the moneyed amateurs chuckling in the background) I decided to buy the lot at $90 a piece, which somewhat startled the cashier, but delighted the ignorant liquor manager! I sold them for more later, needless to say.

And therein lies the first lesson: read all you can on single Malts! Go to the bookstore and read every book (you don't have to buy them!), and then go to a public or University library and check out any books on Whisky. Same for the web, look for any decent outfit like Loch Fines, and even the Magazines, and last not least, learn to read between the lines. I.e., when a "new" bottling is issued to great fanfare go buy the old one in its original box and put it in a dark dry cupboard and forget about it. If you hear that a distillery was closed, or burned down, buy a bottle. It doesn't always work of course: one might have decided that buying one of those silly Macallan Replicas would have been a smart move since the likelihood of them being pulled off the market increased when it was discovered they were based on fakes. That was based on the assumption that the powers that be at the Macallan had a sense of shame -- a mistake.

Another bit of advice is to normally avoid buying a "limited" edition release: everybody buys them, hoards them, and tries to sell them eventually. Its hard to manufacture rarity and collectability that you can invest in from the get go, and the distillers know this but still issue their "limited editions" Anyway. "Limited to how many we can sell you," Seinfeld said, how right he is. Better to search out of the way stores for recently discontinued issuing of popular brands. I got a nice tubed bottle of the water color 10 year old Edradour that way (with a poster inside) for $28 and Whisky Magazine valued it at around $200. Which means I will never drink it. But will sell it, and use the cash to buy something I like and re-invest it if possible.

I am anticipating howls of protest (and you can comment anonymously now by the way) to the effect that collectors are evil and that whisky is meant to be drunk. Well, here collecting is only a means to an end. So please, have a drink, take a deep breath, chill!

The next step involves selling the stuff and you can do that mainly via Ebay. (Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that you quit your day job to go rummaging around your town’s supermarkets or liquor stores, but it might be a good way for you to finance your passion hobby as well as bring a little extra cash.). Of course, your luck will be enhanced the farther you live from the capital of you country --this is perhaps the only comfort I take from living in a political and cultural wasteland disguised a Mecca of Jazz to attract unsuspecting tourist.

I do hope this was somewhat useful and allows some of you to make wise purchases and enable you to afford this passion, if not profit from it .

A new rubric is announced today: the "Best Bet" malt, which either presents a good investment value and/or a great value for money. The first one up here is the American Market Cask Strength Macallan (no age statement) “old” issue: buy them off the shelves quick before the horrid perfume bottle version arrives. This is an especially good move since retailers have been discounting the last old style bottles to get them off the shelves and this great undiluted malt becomes a better value than usual, notwithstanding the fact that one day the older label and the fact that it came from Sherry casks will increase its value. The same applies for the Standard Macallan Cask Strength 10 years old. It is a vastly superior drink by the way, and is a better Macallan than even the 18 year old, not least because its undiluted straight from the Sherry cask Macallan at a great price point. I forecast an increase in price in all of the cask strength offering that becoming more and more trendy. You’ve been warned.

One last word to encourage you all to post comments which can now be posted anonymously!

Cheers!

Dram of the Day

2005-02-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

Glenfarclas, Single Cask, First Fill Distilled 1990, Bottled 2002.

A sumptuous malt from one of the few remaining family-run and owned Single Malt distilleries in Scotland. Talk about Malt Resistance, these fellows embody it!

The Glenfarclas is one of the very best Speyside SMS, but you might not know it because of the modest size of their advertising budget. But a less deserving distillery, such as Aberlour for example, is very well known and constantly advertised and praised in the whisky glossies. This is due in no small part to the tremendous financial punch of the parent company of Aberlour --French Liquor industry powerhouse Pernod Ricard. Regardless of their financially enhanced reputation, I don’t think either Aberlour or the Glenmorangie could produce a first fill single Port cask vintage bottling: it is my contention that their respective spirit would lose themselves completely in the Port.

The Glenfarclas’ spirit has broader shoulders however, and carries the Port well. Both the traditional whisky and Port flavours flow harmoniously in the nose and the mouth. One experiences a flurry of red fruits with a hint of wine at the finish which make this a winner. 94.

The whisky was purchased for a moderate price at the Maison du Whisky in Paris, which it is believed, regularly bottles delightful expressions of Glenfarclas exclusively. Check them out on the web or in person if you can.

By the way, this great sensory experience was almost announced by the information given on the bottle: dates of distillation and bottling, type and age of cask used, and no verbiage! When did you last get so much information on a moderately priced bottle of SMS.? Its been a while I know, which leads us straight to...

The Drama of the Day. When will the distillery owners understand that pertinent information on the bottle can only enhance the prestige and value of their product? The Macallan used to do it on their standard 18 year old (Last one to sport the bottling date was the 1983 vintage). Now only their limited editions bottling --reserved for the very wealthy collectors, or even wealthier drinkers--disclose these essential facts.

Will there one day be an accurate voluntary description of the type of cask used? (whether it is from a first, second of third fill cask; the date of disilling and bottling) I doubt it, for this would obligate the distillery owners to forego practises inherited from their experience as whisky blenders.

For example, a 12 year old is rarely composed of only 12 year old whisky. They may have a bunch of 16 year old 3rd fill cask that they want to get rid of, so the guys plonk it in the vat, and the stuff is still legally a 12 year old... The fine print says it has to be at least 12 years old...

Those practises are common in most every Single Malt distillery: and this explains why we are not going to get full disclosure. This is the curse of Single Malt, for it inherited the legal standards and business practises of a lesser, more widely produced drink, which depended on heavy advertising rather than quality to drive its sales. You guessed it, I am reffering to blended whisky. That's why the folks at the Macallan are killing their product, because they want it to take the place of Chivas or Johnny Walker in terms of sales on the world market. Make no mistake about it, fellow amateur, their eventual succes is predicated on the death of the Macallan as we know it.

Welcome!

2005-02-16T06:34:00.000-08:00

This is a commercial-free venue for those who are interested and enjoy Single Malt Scotch and abhor the marketing and corporate robots who threaten the integrity and eventually, the very existence of this product.

The views on Single Malts expressed here are based on my opinions only; note that these will never be influenced by financial imperatives, advertising hype, or the sense that the corporate heads of the whisky industry should be defended at all costs whatever their actions.

Unlike other commentators or whisky web site, I do not get or ask for free bottles in exchange for awarding phony medals, nor do I have any ties with anyone in the industry. I pull no punches because I am passionate about Single Malt Scotch and the people who make it --for that, I make no excuses.

A very brief summary of recent events seen through a non-commercial lens

Single Malt Scotch, with the exception of Glenfiddich, a precursor, became widely distributed only in the late 1980's. Those were the days of the Classic Malt collection, when Michael Jackson's complete guide to Single Malt Scotch first came out, the days when you could get an 18 year old Macallan with inscribed on the bottle, not only the 'distilled by' date, but the year in which it was bottled too.

Like most forms of progress, the emergence of Single Malt Scotch on a large scale was due to a disaster. In the late 1980's blended scotch (that ersatz mostly made of grain whisky and only some malt) had suffered a solid decade of massive sales decline in the world markets. Vodka was taking over, and the luminaries in the corporate offices which owned whisky distilleries were flailing wildly, willing to dredge up any old crazy idea to try and increase their sales and get rid of their massive stocks of blended scotch. Anything obviously included promoting the essence of whisky, that which is at the core of every famous blend there is: Malt Whisky! We are talking here of the heart of Johnny walker, of Chivas, of Justerini and Brooks, even of the Famous Grouse. Though this would eventually (read: now) lead to some problems, at the time the promotion of single malt scotch was a stroke of genius: sales went through the roof, though keep in mind they represented only a fraction of the larger and still declining blended whisky sales.

So in the late 1980's SMS injected life into the scotch whisky industry, but at the expense of their main bussiness some thought. To use an image, Blended Scotch was seen as a large rotting carcass, and the wide array of Single Malt Scotch brands were the larvae eating away at it frantically.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. This unfinished tale begins even earlier, in the 19th Century , when under the pressure of rancid businessmen (and increased demands) Whisky officially became blended with grain alcohol rather then the Single Malt it once was. It is a tale of profits versus quality, tradition, terroir and the people that make the whisky. It was first the tale of Blended whisky against Malt whisky, and has become the tale of the owners of Blends against Single Malt Whisky as an authentic drink. Which makes Scotch Whisky is a fascinating beverage: its history reflects the economical and (to a certain extent) the political struggles of its times.

Rest assured dear reader, that this is not meant to be a plodding history of Single Malt Scotch from start to finish. Rather, we will be exploring many aspects of the trade, all of which, we hope, will contribute in an unauthorized and therefore more authentic history of Single Malt Scotch.

We plan to examine without compassion but with a fair amount of sadness, the Rise and (coming) Fall of the House of Macallan, and we claim to be able to do it in a way impossible to replicate by the glossy magazine who cash the checks (and pocket the cash) of the Corporate Masters at the Macallan. You see, we plan to report the Decline of the Macallan honestly.

What else? A discussion, and then, the establishment of 3, 4 categories of Malt, like for a Chateau of Bordeaux (appelations should also be classified). Why can we do this and Malt Magazine, or Whisky Magazine cannot? Because they are too beholden to the powers that be in the Whisky world. They are afraid to upset their advertisers, their golfing buddies who send them samples by the case. We are not. Our pride is our lack of connections with the Marketers and Public Relations characters, it is also the guarantee of our independence.

We also plan to discuss the history of Single Malt Scotch through the travails of the people that make it, this might be called: SMS, a people's history.

Every entry will be preceded by the dram of the day and the drama of the day both followed by a short description. On this debut, they will conclude this lengthy introduction; may you enjoy the ride as much as we will. Sante!

Dram of the Day: Laphroaig 10 year old Cask Strength (OB): No extra water makes it immediately more authentic than Islay offerings twice its age and thrice its price. It also makes the mouth-feel visquous, almost slick. The usual sea elements apply, but what makes this one a standout is its uncommon synergy of texture and taste.

Drama(s) of the Day: Realizing that the Macallan is introducing its diluted, Bourbon wood bottling all over the world --not just as a duty free curiosity as it was first claimed. Realizing that this contradicts the Macallan's claim to fame: being the only distillery that used Sherry Wood Exclusively. And last not least, realizing, as the introduction of a 30 year old sadly demonstrates, that they had been planning this little marketing turnaround for ages...

The Macallan's Obituary: a preview.

None other than Malt Pioneer, Michael Jackson, muses on this topic in a very informative piece written by Johanna in her singleminded web-site (its in the archive, and its a great little piece that everyone interested in the Macallan should read). It includes a great quote from MJ who hints, in his typically understated fashion, that he is considering stocking up on the soon to be extinct "Macallan bottled exclusively from Sherry casks."

Michael Jackson's last words on stocking up with the "traditional" sherryied Macallan (in the piece referenced above) puts his tactful tone in perspective, and helps us realize the scope of the damage: the Macallan as we know it, is an endangered species, nothing less. It is being sacrificed on the altar of the quarterly revenue report, because constantly increasing growth is better than a continuous, steady tradition of quality, at least as far as the management at the Macallan is concerned.

The Macallan name and distillery which is in fact part of the Scottish patrimony, is in the hands of incompetent and greedy fools who, for example, rushed to create and market Replicas based on forgeries of old bottles they unthinkingly purchased without testing their authenticity! These are the same guys who phased out Golden Promise (the rich tasting but low-yelding organic barley) as well.

Their "crimes" will be described here clearly --no sugar coating-- for I have nothing to lose, no chats with Bob the distiller, or Rob the Manager, around a few free drams, no visits to the Distillery to look forward to. No, what I and other drinkers have to look forward to is the realization that the shelves of our liquor store, or supermarket, will soon be devoid of Macallan "exclusively bottled from Sherry casks." Then, it will be too late, and there will be nothing but bitterness towards the corporate types that have effectively made the Macallan exclusively aged in Sherry casks a thing of the past...