Matt’s Blog

A blog’s blog

/ / Matt's Blog

I told Richard (and myself) that I was going to take a few weeks off from the blog while me and the missus move house.  However, I’ve been tooling around the other whisk(e)y blogs and this week has been awash with controversy.  Once again the topic of rating legitimacy has reared its ugly head.  It seems to have started with a somewhat rant-like post by our friend .  Like the rest of us, the good Dr. has noticed the explosion of whisky blogs (including ours) over the past 18 months.  If only we moved as fast as we talked, we would have beat the boom.  Dr. Whisky’s rant, fueled by disappointments in his own contributions as much as others, was mostly a call for some sort of worldwide database that catalogued all of our tasting recommendations into one source (he suggests a Rotten Tomatoes type of format).  While Dr. Whisky’s heart was in the right place, it seems he inadvertently stepped on a few toes creating some lively commentary.  It also prompted a fairly eloquent statement from Jeff at Scotch Hobbyist.  While we have said much the same here (including the gentle nudge at Jim Murray), Jeff sums it up quite nicely.  Jeff’s blog name says it all; he’s a hobbyist.  That’s why we are “apostles” and not experts.  We are proselytizing about whisk(e)y because we love it and think you should too.

The other bit of controversy came from one of my new favorites (the folks behind the increasingly popular “Say What!?” series).  When Jason posted preliminary tasting notes of Washington state’s Ellensburg Distillery’s inaugural release (not Jason’s personal notes mind).  He got some flack from an anonymous commenter for his negativity.  I don’t know if it was a sense of guilt or the plan all along, but Jason did a more extensive tasting of Ellensburg (with multiple tasters).  I’m afraid the results were not what the anonymous commenter was hoping for.  I’m glad Anonymous posted his/her rebuttal to the first post.  It is good to have opposing views.  Although, I question whether it was the distiller since they failed to identify themselves and spoke rather positively.  We encourage people to rebut our findings.  We’ve been repeatedly called down for our dislike of traditional Canadian whiskeys, so chin up Jason.

Both of these issues are really the same thing.  We all have different tastes.  If you get six of us together, you’ll probably get seven opinions (especially if I’m in the group).  I’m all for lively discussion, but we need to have thicker skins if we are going to maintain a semi-public lifestyle.  I am a little proud of our community though.  We have yet to sink to kind of douchery that seems to plague the online community.  For the most part, we play nice.

On a semi-related note, I’d like to talk about microdistilling in America for a moment.  If you will indulge me to quote myself, I commented on WHISKYhost’s Ellensburg post thusly:  “Honestly, the only first release I’ve really enjoyed is the rye from Finger Lakes.  Everyone else started off pretty rough (to varying degrees) and are quickly getting better.”  It’s true.  Tuthilltown, Stranahan, and Wasmund all keep getting better and I’ve heard that the stuff coming out of Death’s Door is improving.  It’s bound to happen.

While at a press event a few months ago, I was privy to a conversation about spirits writers in America.  The tone was decidedly uncomplimentary.  To paraphrase:  The problem with spirits writers in America is that they are all self-taught amateurs, they lack the education and training of European spirits writers.  Needless to say, I threw up in my mouth a little.  How is this relevant?  Well, what can be said about American spirits writers can also be applied to micro-distillers.  In Scotland, the majority of Master Distillers have advanced degrees is the sciences behind distilling and undergo years of apprenticeship.  Most American micro-distillers are brewers or moon-shiners with an interest in making whiskey (many of them “self-taught amateurs”).  So give these guys a break and help them find their legs.  These are the guys that will change the industry and blow your mind.  Just give them time.

Drink well, drink responsibly.
Matt

A blog’s blog Read More »

Chivas v. Johnnie

/ / Matt's Blog, Review, Richard's Blog, Scottish Whisky /

The Apostles got an interesting Christmas present this year. Pernod Ricard asked us to review their Chivas Regal 18 year old blend up against Diageo’s Johnnie Walker Blue Label and they sent us samples of each. In this age of global economic crisis, the good folks at Pernod are trying to offer an alternative to the “super premium” options this holiday season. They believe that Chivas Regal 18 is on par with the much more expensive Johnnie Walker Blue Label (maybe not as super premium as Bowmore Gold, but still out of our usual price range) and should be considered when you head out to buy your holiday dram. In the interest of full disclosure we must point out that Matt has always believed Blue Label overpriced and a product of good marketing more than good blending. He’s more a fan of the Gold Label. Richard is a fan of both even before putting them head to head. Now, let’s see how this goes.
(We are foregoing the usual “Comments” sections for a comparative conclusion)

Chivas Regal Gold Signature Scotch Whisky, Aged 18 Years

40% ABV/80 Proof
$55 – $70
Widely Available

What the Blender Says

From Master Blender Colin Scott – A welcoming, rewarding whisky. Exceptional richness with multi-layered aromas of buttery toffee, dark chocolate and dried fruits. Hints of spices and smoke. The voluptuous, velvety palate develops into an extremely long, warm finish.

What Richard Says:

Nose: Slightly vegetal with malty notes. Buttery with hints of orange.
Palate: Develops slowly in the mouth, like a lovely lady slowly undressing. Just a hint of sweetness and a palate that’s smokier than the nose would let on. Spice laden oak.
Finish: The finish is very clean. It’s like the same lady who was seducing you on the palate has left in the middle of the night and leaves you wanting.

Rating: Must Buy

What Matt Says:

Nose: Enchanting. Tart green apple, brown sugar, streusel, hints of pipe tobacco, dark chocolate and berries.
Palate: Dark chocolate, toffee, pipe smoke and dark fruits. Basically, all the notes from the nose are present in the palate. This dram has round and velvety mouth feel.
Finish: Long and luscious. Tastes like an apple tart with blackberries and chocolate.

Rating: Must Buy

Johnnie Walker Blue Label

40% ABV/ 80 Proof
$150 – $200
Widely Available

What the Blender Says

Johnnie Walker Blue Label Scotch whisky has been created by our master blender in the style pioneered by John and Alexander Walker to evoke the authentic, powerful character and flavour of a traditional 19th Century blend. It is an exclusive, hand crafted masterpiece that uses only the rarest and finest of our huge reserves of aged whisky. Produced in strictly limited quantities, it represents our greatest achievement in blending excellence.

What Richard Says:

Nose: Peatier and smokier than most blends. You can really smell the Islay in here. Fresh cut wood and non-orange citrus. Limes maybe?
Palate: An initial sweetness quickly shoved aside for a rich smokiness that settles to brine notes of the sea. Rich, complicated, and ever changing on the palate.
Finish: A very slow and long finish. It leaves you with a mellow smokiness more subtle than the robust smoke on the palate.

Rating: Must Try

What Matt Says:

Nose: Peat, chocolate, honey suckle and other sweet florals. Quite lovely.
Palate: Very smooth, but a little one-dimensional. There are some very light hints of peat, but mostly sweet and fruity.
Finish: Peaty and dry.

Rating: Stands Out

The Results

Richard’s Conclusions:

I find it very interesting that Pernod is putting up their 18 year old blend against Diageo’s most premium product. I would have expected their 25 year old but their confidence is respectable. I have no predisposed grudge against JW Blue but knowing Matt I know where he’s coming from. JW Blue is a big robust blend possibly best suited to those who like big whiskies. If you grab a Lagavulin more often than a Glenrothes then this may be a blend for you. Both whiskies were exceptional in their own ways. I found JW Blue to be more interesting and with a little more depth but it didn’t get as high of a rating because of the price. The Chivas is more approachable and easy drinking. I think both are great and worth experiencing. They each offer something different. I’m calling this one a draw and will leave it up to you to decide. That said, I see Pernod’s point. If you can have one of two spectacular blends and one is a third the price of the other then that’s a very attractive value proposition.

Winner: Tie

 

Matt’s Conclusions:

As stated above, I have some prejudice with this one. To combat that prejudice, I also pulled out my bottle of Johnnie Walker Gold Label for comparison. The results were the same though. I prefer the Chivas (followed by the Gold Label). Chivas Regal 18 manages to be well balanced, smooth and complex. JW Blue has more alcoholic bite on the finish and less complexity. Ultimately, it is about personal preference with ingredients. Johnnie Walker tends to have Caol Ila at its core and the Blue Label is composed of very old whiskies. The Caol Ila imparts a peaty character, while the venerable whiskies provide an incredibly smooth base. Strathisla (a Highland malt) lies at the heart of Chivas. For this reason, Chivas offers less smoke and more fruit. While I have recently gained an appreciation for peat smoke, I still tend toward the fruitier whiskies. I like a complex dram too. When I can get peat smoke AND fruit, that really gets me going. For my money, I’d go with Chivas 18 for this holiday season. If you have some sort of brand loyalty to Johnnie Walker or Diageo, save some money and go for the Gold Label.

Winner: Chivas

Chivas v. Johnnie Read More »

A Thanksgiving Tip and Find

/ / Bourbon, Matt's Blog

It’s Thanksgiving Day here in the U.S. and I’m spending it with the In-Laws.  I’ll make this short since I should be in the kitchen.  My wife is feeling adventurous and  is making a pumpkin pie and bourbon pecan pie completely from scratch.  She is using a Paula Dean recipe.  A word of warning though.  The recipe on the site says “2 tablespoons good quality bourbon.”  In the cook book, one of the tablespoons is for the cook.  If you use both in the pie, it will not set properly and you will have a runny pie on your hands.  Becky is using Basil Hayden’s for the pie this year (based on Richard’s suggestion).  We’ve used Buffalo Trace and Four Roses Single Barrel at various times.  We’ll see if it makes a difference.

While rummaging through my In-Laws liquor cabinet, I found a strange little bottle of bourbon.  It’s labeled “Walker’s DeLuxe Straight Bourbon Whiskey – Aged 8 Years”.  The strangest part of the label though is where it is distilled:  Peoria, Illinois.  I found a somewhat useful thread on straightbourbon.com.  It seems that the Peoria distillery closed in 1979.  The whiskey is still pretty good.  It’s a little sweet and some of the alcohol has evaporated, but it is very drinkable.  All around, a nice find.

Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving everyone.

-Matt

A Thanksgiving Tip and Find Read More »

‘Green’ Distilling Under Fire In Scotland

/ / Matt's Blog, Scottish Whisky

Whisky Magazine just released an article discussing a conundrum within Scottish whisky.  There are new regulations before British Parliament that will change the definition of ‘Scotch malt whisky.’  Part of these regulations, set to go into effect November 23, requires malt whisky to be produced using copper pot stills.  It would seem like a no-brainer.  After all, tradition states that single malts are produced in pot stills and column stills are reserved for ‘lesser’ grain alcohols used in blends.  However, Loch Lomond distillery outside of Glasgow produces whisky using an energy efficient still instead of a traditional pot still.  According to the new regulations, whisky distilled at Loch Lomond will no longer be able to bear the title ‘Scotch malt whisky’.

Presumably, these regulations are to protect consumers and distillers alike from dubious producers (at home and abroad) using inferior products to undermine the Scottish whisky industry.  Loch Lomond produces a whisky much loved by Jim Murray. So, one can assume that the energy efficient still produces quality whisky. Murray even implies that the whisky has improved in quality since upgrading the still around two years ago.  Should one of the most energy efficient distilleries in Scotland be marginalized for environmental concern?  Is tradition and protectionism more important than carbon footprint regardless of product quality?  Furthermore, would allowing Loch Lomond to continue using the ‘Scotch malt whisky’ label open the floodgates allowing all sorts of still configurations?

These are all tough questions.  Quality does not seem to be the issue for Loch Lomond.  So, in this case, it seems like harnessing the industry with the yoke of tradition.  Quite a heavy yoke at that.  But, can we apply regulations by situation.  That seems rather random and unfair.  In my experience, I have preferred pot stilled whiskies and whiskeys around 70% of the time (the major exceptions being mainly American whiskeys).  That leads me to side with the ‘tradition’ side, but the crunchy hippy in me is livid that anyone should be punished for trying to green-up their production process.  Ultimately, I’m all for quality control.  However, I’m not sure this is the way to go.  Anybody else have thoughts on this?

‘Green’ Distilling Under Fire In Scotland Read More »