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.

Ladyburn

I recently had the opportunity to nose a Ladyburn (). A rare opportunity indeed, as in my 10+ years of whisky hunting, it was the first tiume I came across a line up with a Ladyburn.
It's needless to say the whisky could not make good on its price tag. Bottles of Ladyburn start far in the 3 digits. What met my palate was comfortably reminding me of the lowland style I know and love. I'd heard rumors that Ladyburn was actually not very good whisky, but they proved to be incorrect, at least in this case.
I doubt I'll have many opportunities to savour it again, so I'll just cherish the memory of that one dram.

The future of Lowlands

It are dire times for people who enjoy Lowland whiskies, as prices of several staples are quickly going up. It was to be expected anyway, since all of them, but three, are now closed. And if we look at those remaining three, then only Bladnoch is in that true Lowland style. A visit to my local whisky supplier once again confirmed this, it's simply nearly impossible to find Rosebank or St-Magdalene (or Linlithgow for that matter) below 3 digits. I strongly expect Littlemill and Inverleven to follow suit in the next 2 years.
Where will we look for substitutes then? Personally my reflex is to look over the Irish Sea, but will other enthusiasts have that same reflex? At any rate, I see an opportunity for Irish whiskies here. This is something they could make a marketing campaign for, a market which is looking for exactly what they can offer. With most of the attention for Scottish whiskies drawn by the peated and heavy sherry variants, they probably won't be competing with many Scottish brands.
In the mean time, it's not too late to stock up on some Littlemill, before it becomes unaffordable, or if you have the means, one or two Rosebank or St-Magdalene bottles, before they become exclusive to the filthy rich.

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.

Heaven and hell in the lower price range.

A while ago I commented on the 10 year old Goldlys. Today I've tasted the 3 year old.
Definitely not worth the buy! Nothing in it reminds of whisky, it is too woody, and simply awful. I tried spiking my coffee with it, only to get bad coffee. No use for it, well apart from giving it to visitors you'd rather see leave.
If you really need to buy Goldlys buy the 10 year old.

I did come across something far better though. Glen Martin is a pure malt which sells at very acceptable prices (about half the price of a standard single malt) and it is a very enjoyable drinking whisky. It is a mix of highland malts (no citation which ones) that are all at least 12 years of age. Fruity, sweet and a real crowd pleaser. Now, this is what you pour for visitors you want to stick around a bit longer.

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.

Simply peaty

Oh, my! How I've been ignoring my blog in past months. Well, becoming a father may have been interfering with my time. No matter. I'm back!
Lately I've been enjoying a simple 10 year old Laphroaig. No cask strength, or finish stuff. Just clean simple peated Islay goodness. In these times when all kinds of players are jumping on the bandwagon of peat, the Laphroaig 10 remains a testimony of what makes these whiskies so special.
So do yourself a favour, and buy yourself a nice simple Islay and enjoy it for what it is.

I would recommend Laphroaig 10, Lagavulin 16, or an Ardbeg 10. Also very very worth the purchase is a Ledaig 10. Not an Islay, but something that will please any peat enthusiast.

Bladnoch

Very recently I became the proud owner of 1/10 of a cask of new make spirit distilled at Bladnoch distillery. A new venture for me, actually owning maturing spirit. Ok, a tenth of a cask sounds a bit lame, but actually this is a very nice deal, since you only have a tenth of the risk involved as well.
You could split the risk by pooling your money with 9 friends, and then buying a cask, but the nice people at Bladnoch will find 9 friends for you.
Now all I have to do is wait for the spirit to mature. People seem to think that this is a bad thing, having to wait all this time. I think it's great, because all the time the spirit is maturing into a hopefully nice whisky, I can boast owning a cask maturing in Scotland. (a tenth, yes just a tenth, but it's so easy to leave it off isn't it)
I've been promised a picture of the cask (no the entire cask, not just a tenth) so as soon as I get it I'll be sure to post it here.
Obviously I'll report on the progress of the maturation in the coming years...

Sweet drams,

Tom

History

Years back, pretty much the only whiskies I knew were some of the blends that were popular in my parent's house, J&B, William Lawsons and Old Smuggler. I also knew Glenfiddich, but it was not often that my parents got a bottle. Whisky was really of no interest to me. But something about that Glenfiddich being of higher quality for some reason had stuck in my mind, although I didn't really realize or care why.
Much later around my 18th year in life I and some friends pooled some money together to buy and enjoy a bottle of Glenfiddich. A night to remember. Although it was more the company than the whisky. A few years later still I had purchased a bottle of my own. I wasn't into whisky still, it was just something I liked drinking on occasion.
Fast forward again a few years, my girlfriend and me went to Ireland on a holiday, in the good company of a friend. We'd been visiting Irish pubs in Belgium and had discovered that those Irish made some good whiskey too. Our special attention went to Midleton Very Rare, it was really expensive in the pubs, my friend and I had both set our minds to buying a bottle in Ireland so we could enjoy it back home at a relatively cheaper price.
Ireland was a hit, and next year we went back. We carefully planned our route to pass Midleton distillery, which we intended to visit. I must admit that I went a little crazy in the distillery shop and bought no less than three bottles. A Jameson 15 year old, a Jameson 12 year old of the distillery reserve, and a Midleton Very Rare. Truly the whisky virus must have gotten me there and then, because I had just bought what would become the start of my collection. Back home I started to look out for whisky tastings. That was quite difficult back then, as there weren't that many as nowadays. But I managed to score one or two anyway. I had caught on to the blend/malt difference, and regularly bought malts in the supermarket.
In the mean time whisky popularity was rising and tastings became easier to find. My collection had already considerably grown, and I was now buying from specialized stores. I had already developed a fairly good idea of the taste range of whiskies in general. I loved them all. In the last few years a nearby drinks store has started organizing regular whisky tastings, and I try to attend all of them. As a result I have now tasted literally hundreds of different whiskies and own about a hundred myself.
I have now come to the point where I think of myself as a whisky connoisseur, one step beyond whisky enthusiast, but not a true whisky buff either.
Irish whisky will always have a place in my bar, and it pains me to see many people dismiss them so easily. I really love the true Lowland style whiskies, in fact one of the most amazing whiskies I've ever drunk was a 1981 St.Magdalene bottling by Gordon & MacPhail's. Islay also has a few of my favourites, but for me, nominating a favourite whisky is sheer impossible, because any choice I make, would only do injustice to all the others I really like.

So that's more or less how I became a whisky aficionado, what's your excuse ;)

Belgian Whisky II

Belgian whisky is booming! I recently tasted two more new Belgian whiskies. "Gouden Carolus" and "The Belgian Owl".

Gouden Carolus is made by a Belgian brewery. These guys distilled their malt beer and had the spirit mature for four years. Currently only available at the brewery itself, it is more of a rarity, and not a serious commercial product (yet). I tasted it, it was really interesting to find the character of their beer prominently in the product. My best guess is it is due to the type of yeast they use.

The Belgian Owl is made to resemble Scottish whisky. I've only tasted young cask samples, but they have a promising product. I'll make sure to get my hands on some of the resulting whisky and assess their progress.

So Belgium now has three whiskies. I guess the whisky hype isn't about to recede just yet.

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.

Whisky and Cocktails

Whisky is perfectly usable in cocktails. I'm not a cocktail expert. But about a week ago I saw a recipe for a whisky-based cocktail on the BBC that really struck me as worth trying.

• Infuse malt whisky with an Earl Grey teabag
  
• add a bit of honey
• add crushed ice
• shake in a cocktail shaker
• pour.

The guests on the show really seemed to appreciate it. As far as I could recognize the bottle, they used a Macallan fine oak.
Tonight I decided to try this cocktail, well at least to my best ability to recreate it, since I have no actual cocktail shaker. Earl Grey Tea I had plenty, and malt whisky as well. Lacking a Macallan Fine Oak in my bar I opted for the nearly finished anCnoc 12 year old I had. Acacia honey was easily found in the kitchen.
I chose not to add the ice, as to be able to fully enjoy the resulting aroma. Shaking was also not an option so I stirred. 007 would have my hind for this insult, but wasn't anywhere in sight and I had to make do anyway.
I dropped the bag in the whisky, and waited a few minutes. The Earl Grey was doing its work, the colour darkened to a deep amber, from afar the aroma of the tea was apparent. After adding honey and stirring it, I nosed. The nose was mostly the floral and fruity Earl Grey, it greatly masked the nose I was used to from an anCnoc. I sipped. Still slightly floral, more fruit though and sweeter than the nose anticipated, but that's obviously on account of the honey. After a bit the whisky emerged, while the tea revealed oranges. The finish was long and still fruity.
I can see myself drinking this diluted with the crushed ice as an appetizer, perhaps even without the honey, which I think was added as a crowd pleaser. Infusing whisky with tea seems a nice idea. I think I'd probably use less aromatic tea, or perhaps try it with a peated malt, because, pleasing as this experiment was, I had the feeling the tea dominated the whisky a bit too much. Of course cocktail aren't made for nosing and this is very drinkable, but I don't see the point of using a malt if the balance between the aromas of are this askew. So a more robust malt like Talisker may yield a better equilibrium, and if you really just care for the tea and alcohol thingy as an easy cocktail, why not just use a good blended whisky.

Single blend

The Irish tasting was last night. Since it were mostly Connemara variations, it wasn't truly representative of what Irish whiskey is, but it was really enjoyable nevertheless. Seems I haven't been keeping up to date with events in Irish whisky because I learnt that Bushmills is no longer part of Irish Distillers, and is now owned by Diageo.
The tasting was promoting the Cooley distillery products and, as mentioned, Connemara in particular. I guess they market this whisky as their primary brand because it is peated, and bridges the gap between Irish and Scotch whisk(e)y. People who didn't like it claimed it wasn't strong or harsh enough for them. But most attendees agreed it were a few enjoyable drams these relatively new Irish distillers had brought with them.
Aoife O'Sullivan, brand marketer for Cooley, had a hard time fending off some comments from the die-hard Scotch lovers, but managed to keep everybody open minded.
As she expleined some more about how Cooley had originated and how it operated it dawned on me: their Kilbeggan blend was made entirely of their own produce. Part their own malt, and part their own grain whiskey : Kilbeggan was nothing less than a Single Blended whiskey. When I asked her about this, she could not but agree. Perhaps they could stir up the market by marketing it as such... who knows.
The tasting had two gems which I will probably never have the opportunity again to taste. The first being a bottle of their first distillate of Connemara. This 16 year old showed great maturity and had no reason to blush when compared to some fine Scottish peated whiskies.
The second gem was a bottle from a cask they had bottled as 'The Drunken Angel'. The reason for this is because the "angel's share" from this particular barrel had been exceptionally large. Instead of two hundred something bottles only 65 were left in the cask when they opened it. The quality of which was equally exceptional. It was something of a vanilla monster. It opened with full vanilla aroma's then had a short bitter relapse only to come back with superb vanilla cream roundness and lingered on for quite a while. If the angels had had their fair share, they must obviously like vanilla.
Don't look for 'The drunken angel' in shops, you won't find it. It is limited to six tasting sessions and that's it, one of them was the one I attended yesterday.
First tasting of the new season : full score. I had a great time. I almost can't wait until the next.

Summertime whisky

Hot temperatures and whisky are not a good mix for me. If it's hot the whisky stays in its cabinet. Summer is more of a beer period for me. I know several people who claim to enjoy whisky on ice in summer, and they even say they find it refreshing, but it doesn't work for me.
In fact it goes further than just whisky, anything stronger than wine is out during summer. The high levels of alcohol give me a warm sensation, and I just want to cool off.
So beer it is, or water, or chilled white wine, ...
Why this post? Well, as much as I like whisky, as much as it is my passion, there's a time and place for everything, and to me, the people drinking whisky in summer, just long for winter. I on the other hand enjoy the summer, which has its own charms.
Summer's just the time to enjoy all the other great drinks.

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.

Macallan vs. Glenfarclas

Maturing exclusively on first-fill sherry casks, something both Macallan and Glenfarclas do. Or rather did. Macallan has abandoned this practice in starting its fine oak series. Glenfarclas, for now, remains adamant in the face of more expenses for the Spanish wood. In an article I read recently, Mr. John Grant of Glenfarclas claimed he would continue his maturation policy.
What should we make of this?
Macallan's move was, at best, clumsy, from a communications point of view. If you advocate first-fill sherry cask maturation to be the one and only true way of maturing whisky, for years, it is rather silly to suddenly switch to bourbon casks. But the Fine Oak is a testament to the know how of Macallan. Yet it also revealed how Macallan has been rather hypocritical, since all of a sudden they seem to be able to market 30 year old Macallan matured in bourbon casks. On the other hand it appears this hypocrisy has allowed them to make the switch. A luxury which perhaps Glenfarclas does not have. Mr. Grant's determination to continue exclusive sherry cask maturation may be in part inspired by the inability to make the switch.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Will Macallan repent, and return to sherry casks because it is losing its fans, despite the quality of its new line. Or will Glenfarclas succumb under the economic pressure of the cheaper Bourbon casks. Or will both flourish? The last is not entirely unlikely, since whisky still is booming, its market still has a lot of potential growth.
Perhaps in a few years the peat hype will be replaced by the sherry hype, and then Glenfarclas will reap the rewards, although Macallan is probably investing in enough sherry casks to keep all options open, after all, that just seems to be the smart thing to do.

Whisky Missionary

As a whisky enthusiast I encounter lots of people who are puzzled at my interest in the golden drink. Attending tasting sessions for whiskies is often a novelty for them. Tasting sessions are most often associated with wine. Wine has several advantages over whisky, for one it is less alcoholic. Let's face it, the alcohol levels of whisky are a major threshold for many. This factor also makes whisky unfit for drinking in larger quantities. Not that I would advise anyone to ingest large quantities of wine, nevertheless you could drink more wine in one sitting than you could whisky, without getting drunk. I agree that for some people getting drunk is the point, but this is not the kind of 'whisky enthusiasm' I am referring to.
Wine also has a great culinary tradition, something whisky lacks. In recent years several authors have tried to introduce whisky into the kitchen, but success seems fairly remote. Whisky is not often used in the kitchen, and almost never considered as an accompanying drink with a meal. I think whisky will always remain at a disadvantage here.
So spreading the love for whisky is difficult. Most people have only tried a few blended whiskies, or perhaps a Glenfiddich, and decided they didn't like it much, or not enough to explore more. So having a few accessible malts in your bar is a good idea if you plan on winning a few souls.
Most of the time I'm happy just to get people to acknowledge there is more to whisky then what they knew, sometimes I manage to get them interested. And then I'm glad there's one more person to share this interest with. After all, what fun is it to enjoy whisky all alone.

P.S. : I am lucky enough that my wife also loves the stuff, so I rarely enjoy it alone, it just never hurts to share with more.

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.

Nosing vs. Tasting

I just wanted to formulate some thoughts on how people often focus too much on the taste of the whisky and neglect the nosing.
I'm no great noser, I must admit. My skill is limited to recognizing aromas I've encountered in other whiskies, but actually naming the smells is often beyond my capabilities. So I can probably forget about a job within my favourite industry, aside from the fact that I don't actually live in Scotland. Nevertheless I find nosing to be the most exciting part in evaluating a dram. Complex whiskies' noses take you on a journey through different sensations, often too quickly passed to be named. So it's a pity when some people don't pay any attention to a malt's nose.
To me, there are whiskies whose nose I find more interesting than their effect on my palate. I sometimes find myself still sniffing them, when others have almost finished their glass.
So I'd recommend anyone who likes whisky to linger a bit longer about the nosing, and discover what great secrets it can unveil.