Fail-safe distilleries

While it is hard to imagine any production process to work flawlessly, it seems I sometimes come acros distilleries of which it seems hard to find bottlings independent or official that are subpar. And of course this perception is entirely personal. It may simply be a draw of luck that what I sampled of a particular distillery just happens to be great, and that their inferior product just manages to evade my palate. Yet, when I convey these findings to fellow enthusiasts, more often than not they find these same distilleries to be of higher average standard than others. So it may simply not be coincidence too.

Interestingly, and in a sense luckily, quite a few of these distilleries are largely ignored by the general audience.
It is interesting, because it seems to indicate that the general audience, even in a market that is so keen on quality, is still swayed by commerce and marketing, rather than by a product that is consistently of high standard. And I can add, before you'd accuse me of elitarian arrogance, that I am myself not immune.
It is lucky, since a heightened attention would obviously raise the prices of the distillates of such a distillery. As a consequence, among my circle of fellow enthusiasts, we often tell each other to shush about certain distilleries, to keep the secret of which distilleries are almost fail-safe.

So since local protocol requires me not to name them, I will only refer to them in less obvious terms. At any rate you should just as well not advise your friends to try anything of the most northerly distillery on the Scottish mainland, nor point any of your fellows to a distillery that has been distilling the finest highland malt whisky since 1898. One should take care not to utter the name of the distillery behind the swirling mists around the isle of mull. Don't tell any one about what can be found at the misty shores of the Dornoch Firth, nor about that speyside gem that was founded in 1897.

Elderly whiskies

I recently attended a whisky tasting that featuered old whiskies only. It is a treat for whisky enthusiasts like myself to be able and nose whiskies that are obviously too expensive to buy a whole bottle of.

This was on the menu :

• Convalmore 30 y.
• Lochnagar 32 y.
• Dailuaine 34 y.
• Caperdonich 40 y.
• Banff 32 y.
• "Probably Speyside's Finest" 43 y.(Glenfarclas)
• Tamnavulin 30 y.

The foremost problem of older whiskies is obviously their price (which makes tasting events an ideal opportunity to nose them). In the case of independent bottlings, as was the case here, older whiskies have a tendency to have off notes, I suspect because they're matured beyond their peak. Official distillery bottlings seem to suffer less from this problem, likely due to a larger cask selection, but they are invariably more expensive per year of maturation.
All this makes buying old whiskies a risky business if you haven't tasted them before purchase. The conclusion is as simple as it is obvious : don't buy expensive old whiskies without having tried them.

Fancy titles and limited editions

The commercial guys of the big whisky industry are constantly pushing new fancy titled whiskies and limited edition bottles on the market. Are these worth the effort of trying or buying?
One thing I had to realize very quickly after becoming totally enthralled by malts, was the fact that, no matter what, I was never going to be able to taste all of them.
Simply look at someone like Jim Murray, who's tasted thousands of whiskies, and yet he's not tasted all of them.
Now, fancy titled whiskies and limited editions just move the already unreachable target just a little bit further out of reach, so I don't mind very much.
I have a few friends who are also into whisky and we share tips and pointers to what's new and good, and what's new and not so good. This is also great about whisky blogs and forums. The big guys may be able to fool the average consumer, but the connoisseur will unveil the charade fairly quickly.

Independent bottlings

I once met a man who was a member of a whisky club, this was in the days I was myself fairly new to whisky, who assured me independent bottlings were always superior to the standard distillery bottlings. I strongly disagreed with the man. I guess I still do, although I can see his point.
A standard bottling is created in a totally different way from an independent bottling. The distillery is looking for consistency, so they use their entire stock of casks to compose the same (or very much the same) whisky every time. Their brand is associated with a specific taste, and they have to reproduce this every time. Sometimes they make a limited or exclusive series, which is unique but in the general direction of their standard product.
An independent bottling is unique every time. The independent bottler has a much more limited stock of casks from any given distillery and usually bottles one cask at a time. This bottling's quality depends on that one or two casks it was made from, so there is no way of balancing a lower quality cask with a better one. Of course (most) independent bottlers select the casks, they want to bottle for quality, (yes some will just bottle anything).
So it seems reasonable to conclude that a standard distillery bottling has a consistent quality, and an independent bottling can be better or worse, depending on the casks they bottled.
As a connoisseur a standard bottling is good, but since it is the same every time, it seems more interesting to explore the wild variety of a plethora of independent bottlings. Sometimes they may disappoint, but there is also the very real possibility of finding a hidden gem.

The man from the whisky club claimed independent bottlers would only buy the high quality casks from distilleries and therefore each of their bottles would be better than the distiller's. It seems highly unlikely to me a distillery would sell only their best casks to an independent bottler. Furthermore, this claim relies on the fact that bottler's would buy matured casks from the distillers. Most of the time it works the other way around. Bottlers, typically blenders, have filling contracts with distilleries, or buy unmatured casks, and only years of maturing will prove it to be bad, average, good or perhaps even great. Douglas Laing co., as a blender, has filling contracts with distilleries, and opts to bottle some exceptionally good casks as single malts, and the rest goes to the blending. Gordon & MacPhail even mature most of the casks they buy in their own warehouses.
A bottler isn't always assured of getting only the best of casks, and so he faces a challenge : what to do with casks that are sub par? As I already mentioned, some bottler may deal with this challenge by ignoring it and bottling it anyway. Others, such as Douglas Laing, just use these for their blend, and others still, such as Gordon & MacPhail, have large enough stocks and the know-how to combine several casks to get a good quality result.

If you want to buy an independent bottling, you as a consumer face a wager, will this bottling be worth the price you pay for it? There aren't many guidelines. Not much on a whisky's label can tell you about what you will find inside. Distillery? If it's only one or two casks they are no way guaranteed to taste anything like the distillery's standard. Age? Given that every cask reaches a peak in quality, and that this peak is different for every cask, age is no useful guideline at all. Vintage? Is of absolutely no consequence. The type of cask may give you some general idea, but doesn't assure quality at all. In the end you'll have to rely on the bottler. Is he committed to bringing high quality products to the market, or is he just interested in another sale. Knowing how the bottler operates helps, but nothing beats experience. If a bottler hasn't let you down, time after time, it's not likely you're going to get rubbish the next time. It all comes down to reputation.

Lastly :
I want to note that some distilleries' standard bottlings are so varied that it becomes hard for the customer to discern a typical taste or nose for that distillery, I'm thinking of Bruichladdich, Glenmorangie, etc. Whether this is commercially a wise move, only time will tell.

Belgian Whisky

Two weeks ago the moment had arrived, I would taste the first Belgian whisky. Goldlys, as it's called is a product from Filliers distilleries, who traditionally make gin. It comes in a 3 year old and a 10 old variety. I tasted the 10 year old.
I had heard some bad comments on it before I tried it myself, but I set my mind on trying to like it no matter what they said and, when I did finally taste it... it was a bit of a letdown.
Mind you, I was expecting it to not taste like any whisky I had ever tasted, since it was technically a grain whisky, which went through a column still as well as a pot still. Well it was nothing like any whisky I'd had before, but it was a lot like, well gin. Only less aromatic. Grains were predominant, and I distinctly felt they could have done more with the product.
Later that night I got some inside information. Apparently the thing wasn't half bad before they chill filtered and coloured it, but Filliers couldn't resist going all out commercial and, even for the 10 year old aimed for the mass market. Although with what they have, I doubt it'll strike gold. Goldlys is somewhere between gin and whisky, and I don't think whisky lovers, nor gin lovers will develop a taste for it.
So our hopes remain with "The Belgian Owl", which should be the first Belgian single malt ever, and which will reach 3 years of age soon. I'm told that project is trying to be a Scottish style malt, I'm hearing good things about it. I hope it can deliver, because Goldlys doesn't cut it for me.
The sad part is that Filliers is the importer of Glenfarclas in Belgium, and have a long tradition of distilling, so they sure had the knowledge at hand. My guess is, they didn't have the patience to really sit down and make something good. I think all they had on their mind was beating "The Belgian Owl" to it for first Belgian whisky. Sadly they succeeded only technically.

Finish anxiety

In this year's whisky bible Jim Murray expresses serious concerns about finishes. He acknowledges the marketing potential and the fact that great new products may come from it. But he laments the fact that a lot of bad finishes are being brought to the market. At the same time he fears finishes may distract from the true distillery product.

There is indeed much ado about finishes lately. But I think the anxious standpoint of Jim Murray may just be a bit too negative. It is true that bad finishes are being brought to the market. But distilleries who do this will soon face the commercial consequences, because the malt market is one of malt lovers who know what is good and what isn't. The larger problem is those independent bottlers, who seem to have no qualms whatsoever to bottle anything they can get their hands on, slapping on a finish just to make it seem a bit more special. Of course I am aware that certain independent bottlers are quite careful about what they bring to the market, since they know their reputation is very important. Nevertheless there seem to be bottlers who don't seem to care as much. They are the larger part of the problem, because they also hurt the distilleries, who never have consented to how their product was marketed.
The consequences are already becoming obvious : distilleries grow more and more protective of their brand name, and I expect more and more distilleries to protect their brand names more rigorously. This may hurt the malt market more than the finishes themselves. For any connoisseur the output of independant bottlers forms a major part of their interest, mainly because it greatly expands the available flavours of whisky.

Finishes themselves aren't a bad thing. It's the bad publicity an independent bottler may bring upon a distillery which may lead to a much more narrow market. Purer, yes, but also poorer.

I'm sure the last on finishes hasn't been said.

Quantity spoils quality?

Tonight I was poured an Ardmore. My boss, who did the actual pouring made it a rather large one. At least to my standards. I'd had a dram from this bottle on a previous occasion and must say that I had enjoyed it very much then. But tonight the Ardmore seemed off.
At first I blamed the mood. You know, as there is a whisky for every mood, I apparently wasn't in the mood for this one. Then I thought it was the glass. No fine nosing glasses at work, so the Friday night dram was consumed in a Cognac glass. Yet the week before that same glass hadn't been a problem, and I should just remind myself to bring a proper glass on Fridays anyway.
On my way home, it struck me : the quantity.
You see, yesterday night I poured myself a Caol Ila, in the comfort of my own home, at ease, so the mood couldn't have been a problem, and the glass was just fine. Yet in my enthusiasm I accidentally poured somewhat more than I am used to. And it too didn't feel right. Now this can mean two things : I am either currently only in the mood for the most typical of Irish whiskies or it was the quantity that spoiled it.
How quantity can do that, I have no idea. Perhaps it is the ratio air to whisky in the glass that unbalances the right conditions for the aromas , or the fact that the greater amount of whisky makes you take bigger sips, allowing for the alcohol to numb and subdue your palate.
Perhaps I should just take more care in the size of my drams, and perhaps experiment with it.