the whisky lounge

A Fitting End

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:39:00 +0000

Hello there.

And so, we have reached the end! I'm happy to report that the Glen Parker experiment has succeeded. I now would confidently serve this stuff to friends. Remarkable, really, given that it was about as appealing as turpentine at the beginning.

The violet blossoms on the nose last week are still here, but it's not overpoweringly floral. The flowers blend into - finally - a vanilla note rather nicely. The liquorice is still there, but it works well. The smoke, which was starting to hide last week, has continued to do so: it's still there, but it's not the predominant aroma by any means. There's still the scent of fresh foliage as well, though my slightly-ill nose has a bit of trouble finding it. An observant reader would, doubtlessly, notice that the description this week uses much the same vocabulary as last week's. There is a reason for this. The ingredients which make up the nose haven't changed significantly, but there has been a transformation nonetheless. It's noticeable on the palate as well.

It's still got oak and sandalwood, though the oak is clearly the stronger of the two. Liquorice. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I must have been crazy last week, since I notice a good amount of black pepper this time, which I had thought was starting to be absorbed into the other flavours. Perhaps my cold has something to do with it. I wouldn't describe the smokey component as apple-scented tobacco any longer. There's a faint hint of apple, but the smoke is closer to burning incense now, I'd say. Aromatic and spicey. But it is faint. It's only one segment of a rather tasty combination of flavours.

The biggest change is that it's a smoother dram than it ever has been before. Some of this will be attributable to evaporated alcohol, of course. But the edges of the flavours have been smoothed off, and the unpleasant components removed and transformed into something that's not exactly the most delicious whiskies I've had, but is pretty darned good nonetheless.

Of the two cheap whiskies that I bought to accompany the Whisky Works cask, the McClelland's turned out better. The Glen Parker has become drinkable, and I'm going to enjoy the rest of it, but it's not as rich or complex as the McClelland's managed to become. I'm not sure who actually produced the Glen Parker, so I don't have a more fully-aged cousin with which I can compare, but it seems to me that, while it's tasty enough, it will remain a cheap-tasting whisky. Nevertheless, a worthy experiment!

So this brings me to the end of the first casking series. I don't think I could get any more use out of the wee barrel, as it's had water, sherry and three whiskies in it by this point. It's done its duty admirably. And really, it works with my schedule perfectly. I'm going to buy another cask to play with, but I'll wait until the fall. My summer is looking pretty damned near full, and it involves a lot of not being at home long enough to experiment with a cask.

In the mean time, I'll be plotting what to do next. I've sampled a home-casked whisky done in a sherried cask and an untreated cask. Perhaps this fall should be an experiment with port or something even crazier. We shall see. If anyone is clamouring for any particular vein of experimentation, I'm open to suggestions.

So, until the fall keep yourselves entertained with the other whisky sites I've got in the sidebar.

Cheers,

Ian

Alexander Henry

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:45:00 +0000

Depending on your mastery of random esoterica, you're probably wondering one of two things:

Who is Alexander Henry and what does he have to do with a post that's late by a whole week?

What does a late eighteenth-century fur-trader from New Jersey have to do with a whisky blog?

Rightly so. An explanation is in order.

When not enjoying the mysteries of good whisky, I do actually have a day job which sometimes does weird things to my schedule. This is one of those times. I had to travel to lovely Kingston, Ontario for work, and unexpectedly (and unpreparedly, I might add) found I had to stay substantially longer than the few hours I'd originally expected. I ended up staying on a retired Coast Guard Great Lakes Ice Breaker which is now a B&B. I think my cabin said I was a First Mate or something. Why the Canadian Coast Guard chose to name a ship after a fur-trader from New Jersey is one of those mysteries best left unresolved.

In any case, the extra time in K-town threw a monkeywrench into my schedule, and I'm just now getting caught up on the stuff I couldn't do while I was away. Such as blogging. At least I had a good time in Kingston, though it was a whisky-free trip. Props to Deirdre for providing entertainment.

Back to the important stuff: whisky! The Glen Parker has been doing its thing for nearly two weeks now, which is longer than I've left anything before. The changes are profound.

The nose was just hinting at crab apple blossoms last time. This has become a strong violet blossom fragrance, which combines quite nicely with the still-strong liquorice. It's actually less noticeably smokey now, which is interesting. Specifically, it reminds me of the smoke from apple-scented tobacco that I recall people smoking from a hookah from my university days. I hung out with archaeology students. We have strange hobbies. There's also a hint of a breeze through a forest in spring time: fresh foliage. It's rather nice, actually.

My god. I just used the phrase "rather nice" to describe a Glen Parker.

The sandalwood and oak I'd noticed in the taste the last time are really evident today. There is no more pine resin whatsoever. The liquorice on the nose is still here in the taste, but the black pepper I noticed last time is faint. So is the vanilla, but it is there. I recall thinking it was very pungent to begin with, but that's vanished. It's far from the smoothest dram in my collection, but it's miles better than it started.

I'll give it one more week just to see if some of the edge comes off. and since I foresee no trips to Kingston or anywhere else in the near future, when I say a week, this time I'll really mean it.

Cheers,

Ian

At Last We Meet

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:08:00 +0000

I can think of no better way to take a short break from a Monday's hard work than to sit back and sample a whisky in the name of science. Working at home does have its advantages. :-)

You will doubtlessly remember just how terrible the Glen Parker was when it began. It's been showing a definite improvement over the past several weeks, but at last check was still far from something I'd want to drink, let alone serve to anyone with functional tastebuds. However, I'm now very pleased to report that the impossible has indeed happened: the formerly bland and unappealing Glen Parker has a definite character! And it's not even an off-putting character at that. It's finally starting to show some uniqueness that doesn't derive from fishiness.

The nose exhibits good strong liquorice, rich tobacco smoke and a hint of the blossoms from the crab apple trees that grew on my street when I was a child. I think that's the mystery fruity smell I'd been finding. It's still not a marvellous nose, though: the tobacco-liquorice combo is still a bit unintegrated. I find them both, but they haven't blended. All in all, though, a definite improvement.

On the tongue, things are much better than they started. It's continued the trend of moving away from resinous pine and into oak, cedar and sandalwood territory. It's not got the coniferous tang any longer. There's a hint of hard toffee, the slightest tinge of vanilla (finally!) and some black pepper and liquorice. It's got a long finish with some cinnamon, but I still must report that the peculiar pungency is still faintly there, underlying everything. The very end of the finish reveals a hint of freshly-cut hardwood. At least it doesn't taste like I'm licking a sturgeon any longer.

So, we're finally getting somewhere. It's still far from my favourite, but I'm now no longer in doubt that it will be thoroughly drinkable after maybe a few more weeks.

The cask, by the way, is holding up perfectly with the new cork: the seal holds completely. Pouring is a bit adventuresome, but hey: who doesn't need a bit of adventure now and again?

Catch you later,

Ian

As If We Needed Another Reason to Pay Attention to Islay

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:08:00 +0000

Hi there,

If you are going to be on the island of Islay in the middle of August and have £25 burning a hole in your pocket, why not check out the only chance you're likely to have of seeing a whisky barrel dropped from a helicopter by parachute?

It's apparently a one-off event to raise money for local charities, and it involves whisky, so it gets my stamp of approval. The prizes range from a gigantic bundle of money to accommodations at a hotel during a whisky festival to your own personal hogshead full of ~~sweet~~, smoky delicious whisky to a number of bottles of the peaty nectar from the island.

If you're interested, check it out here: http://www.spotthewhiskybarrel.com/index.htm

In other news, my new cork is holding up perfectly, so the cask is now back to usable shape with narry an escaped droplet since the repairs. Thank goodness! While I may not get any further use out of it after the Glen Parker, or at most might get one more shot, I'll at least be able to finish up the experiment.

Cheers,

Ian

Eschatology / How Do You Do, Mr Austin?

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:36:00 +0000

We can rebuild him...We have the technology.

This post has something very much in common with my cask. It now looks a little different than when I started.

Two samplings ago, I noticed something was up. At that point, the cask was to be set upside down (as it needs to be rotated weekly). I noticed shortly after doing so that it was dripping. "No big deal," I thought. It had happened before, and the cause was a poorly seated cork. Easily fixed.

No dice.

It was still as drippy as Toby Marks. So I tried again, and it seemed to be holding, so I left it alone and thought nothing more about it until I sampled it again Friday evening. At that point, I found a wet patch on the bare wood upon which it had been sitting, and the cork itself soaked through. Obviously, it had been leaking, albeit very slowly.

So, I looked examined everything carefully and found the culprit: the spigot had cracked. Have a gander if you please:

[feel free to embiggen the photo by clicking thereupon]

The angle is a bit off here, but the crack you see near the hole and the one further to the right are actually along the same section of grain in the wood; it's one long crack. You can see the dark staining from leaked whisky.

I don't know the cause of the crack, but that's clearly the problem; without a more-or-less airtight seal at the cork and at the spigot, too much air leaks in allowing the liquid to escape. Think, if you will, about science class when you were a kid. Remember your teacher holding up a sealed vessel filled with water and with a hole at the bottom? Nothing poured out if the hole was small enough due to the magic of surface tension. Open the top of the container, and everything spilled out of the bottom hole. The same principal applies here.

I figured the jig was up. With a cracked spigot, I would be unable to seal the cask, and no matter what, excessive leakage would occur, meaning the cask was more or less useless. It was at that point that I hung my head in sadness and started writing this post under its original title. I fully expected that I might not even be able to finish the Glen Parker experiment, which would leave me with a bottle of undrinkably awful whisky, and nothing further to write about, meaning this blog, such as it is, would come to an abrupt end. Perish the thought!

Fortunately, however, I happened to do a very stupid thing today which, in the end, turned out to be most beneficial. I decided that even though it was eight bazillion degrees outside, I wanted to go to Art in the Park by bicycle instead of by some more sensible (and air-conditioned) vehicle. The art show was quite nice, but the ride home was even better; it took me past a hardware store that happened to sell wine-making supplies. I decided to stop in because 1: they had air-conditioning, and 2: I thought there was a microscopic chance they might have a spigot small enough to fit a 1-litre cask like mine. They didn't, but they did happen to sell small bags of baby corks for what must be wee, tiny bottles. At $2 for 12, I couldn't go wrong, so bought a bag, raced home, wrenched out the spigot, thrust in a cork, and voila! No more leaks! Here's a photo, complete with the staining from excessive dribbling and a fresh, new cork:

So now, I have what: a cyborg cask? A Frankencask? I don't know. I prefer to think of it as the Steve Austin of whisky barrels. Maybe it'll even make some cool sound effects when I pour the whisky. :-)

So to all of you with your own casking projects on the go: watch out for cracked spigots! Perhaps a visit to your friendly neighbourhood purveyor of corks would be advisable before it becomes a problem. Who knows how much sweet, sweet whisky I lost while unable to stop the dripping? Thank goodness it wasn't the good stuff. :-)

Cheers,

Ian

How Do You Do, Mr. Radd?

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:07:00 +0000

If you read comic books (which I don't), you'll be familiar with the story of a Mr. Norrin Radd, a young astronomer from the far-off planet Zenn-La. He's a rather regular chap, with friends and a family and all the usual stuff, but he does have one characteristic which distinguishes him from all the other Zenn-Lavians. He and only he is the Herald of the Devourer of Planets.

Why am I mentioning Norrin Radd at all? Well, his story actually has some significance for this week's (slightly belated, sorry) test of the Glen Parker Speyside which has been in the Whisky Works cask for about a month now. Both were introduced in their respective realms as villains, and both ended up having characteristics rather heroic.

OK, it's fair to say that calling Glen Parker "heroic" is about the overstatement of the century, other than perhaps "your mobile phone plan will cost only $30 per month," but it's fitting. The Glen Parker started its life as abysmal. It then was merely terrible. Then only bad. Today, I'm happy to report it's merely somewhat unpleasant. It's not exactly going to rise against its boss and help the Fantastic Four save humanity, but it is going to be something I don't want to immediately pour down the drain. Not that I think it's enjoyable yet, but still: any improvement is good in my books.

On the nose, the faint tobacco smoke I noticed last week is still there. It's still quite faint, though. Weirdly enough, I'm finding a butter frosting, like you'd get on cheap store-bought cinnamon rolls. There's also that weird fruit that I still can't identify despite my best efforts. Not quite strawberry and not quite lychee, it's along those lines. There's the faintest hint of black tea as well, but it's so faint, I barely notice it. It's far from the nicest smelling whisky in my collection, but it's now not thoroughly malodorous, either.

The taste is still reminiscent of conifers, though it's rounding out with a robust oakiness as well. There's even a vein of sandalwood running through it, but not overwhelmingly. It's tarry, iodiney. The same mystical fruit in the nose is here, and it's equally impossible to identify. The fishiness I'd noticed earlier in the process is gone now, I'm happy to report. It's still a bit too pungent for me, with the tang of iodine and the fruit combining in a less than pleasant way, but it's getting better.

My mission this week is to go out and buy a bunch of different types of fruit to see if I can figure out what the heck I'm tasting and smelling in here. I promise I'll do my damndest to identify it for you guys.

At the rate the whisky is improving, but also accounting for how awful it was at the beginning, I'll have at least a few more weeks before it becomes drinkable.

Oh, yes: colour. The colour hasn't changed a bit since last week. In the past, that has meant that it's acheived the final colour it will reach, so I don't expect it to change any further. But who knows, maybe it'll surprise me...

Until then,

Ian

Thirsty in Cow Town?

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:00 +0000

Hey folks,

I just caught wind of an upcoming event which might be of interest to anyone in Calgary in mid-June with a spare $200 burning a hole in their pockets.

At Buchanan's Chophouse on June 13 is an event they're calling "Black Bowmore Dinner." In addition to a 3-course meal, you get a few shots of single malts including the über-rare Black Bowmore. This stuff retails for over $4000 per bottle, so I guess the $200 price tag on the dinner isn't too crazy.

I'm not going to be there, so won't be able to report on it for you, but if you happen to be looking for something to do in Calgary, your search is over!

Cheers,

Ian

Of Clouds and Silver Linings

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 26 May 2008 02:13:00 +0000

Not that it really should have mattered in the end, but I've had one of those weeks that really screw with a person's head. This was the week the new windows arrived at my apartment, and the combination of moving furniture out of the way, letting the construction guys in for a day and then cleaning up after the considerable mess they left behind and only then moving my furniture back to where it should have been really threw a monkeywrench into my schedule. You try working from home with all that going on! Furthermore, the TV show I'd taped and had been looking forward to turned out to be unimpressively dull. And finally, as the crowning glory of a rather annoying week, I discovered that my only copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark had been scratched, and I can no longer get my Indy fix. To most of you, I expect that last one would be a minor irritation, easily shrugged off. To an archaeologist like me, it's a tragedy. Trust me. There were nearly tears.

So, it was with a rather large amount of trepidation that I approached my cask this weekend. After the drubbing my psyche took this week, I was definitely not looking forward to another dose of the awful Glen Parker. But I screwed up my courage, poured a sample, and had a wee sip. Hence the silver lining in this post's title. There have been some nice changes in the whisky. I'm now very happy to report that the Glen Parker has been upgraded from Terrible to merely Bad.

Here's a photo for your enjoyment:

[click to embiggen the photo]

The whisky from the cask is on the right. The uncasked version is on the left. Even though I wasn't too confident about the colour change last week, I think it's clear that casked version is a darker amber. That's good. It definitely means there's a bit of oomph left in the cask, and that I'm not merely hallucinatorilly deluding myself into thinking the whisky's getting better.

Which it most definitely is. Like I said, it's bad. But that's actually a really good thing considering how terrible it was when we started. On the nose, there's a nice smokey aroma rather like a fine cigar. Richer than just wood smoke. It's still sort of washed out though, as if it hasn't reached its full strength. I take that as a good thing; I'll give it as much time as it wants.

That faint fruity note is there still, and I'm still struggling to identify it. It's not quite strawberry, not quite grape...it almost reminds me of bubblegum, but that's not it either. Maybe rosewater? Loukoum? Neither of those are fruits, but they're in the right ball park. Ah, well. There's a sweetness of some kind hiding in there, waiting to come out. I'll let you know when it does.

The taste has also improved, but some of the unpleasantness is still there. It continues to have a coniferous taste, though it's moved away from pine to ceder with a hint of spruce. The oak is blending in well, and there's a billow of smoke appearing on the finish, which is nice. The fishy pungency is there still, but it's fading slowly, overtaken by a grainy flavour. I still find myself hoping for the richness of vanilla but finding none. Overall, the biggest change is that I no longer pucker my lips and wince when I have a sip. It's still several steps from being really drinkable, but it seems to be moving in that direction. As long as it gets there eventually, I'll be happy.

Until next week,

Ian

The Maple Leaf Forever!

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:29:00 +0000

I really should finish unpacking. I've been home for bloody days now and the luggage is still there on my floor, with who knows what left in it. I mention this only because I was looking for something unrelated and found something I'd forgotten about: whisky.

I know, I know, forgetting about whisky is at the very least a civil crime, but in my defence I thought I'd misplaced it entirely and was happily surprised to find it had been lost not on the streets of Toronto or the floor of whatever nightclub I was at, but in the bottom of my duffel bag.

The whisky in question is a single shot in one of those mini bottles that Rob gave to me. It's a small amount of his casking of Forty Creek Barrel Select. I have mentioned it before in this blog. In any case, Forty Creek is one of the few Canadian whiskies I'll drink, though I have to admit that it will never be one of my favourites. I find it is a bit too sweet, like most Canadian whisky I've tried. I have heard they had a different grain blend out there somewhere, but I never got the chance to try it. Maybe it would have been closer to my palate.

Rob, on the other hand, quite enjoys Canadian whisky, or "rye" as people seem to call it even though it frequently has very little or even no rye (by which I mean the grain) in it.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, a free whisky is a good whisky, so I'm happy to sample. Here are my thoughts:

Rob's exactly right when he says it's spicier than Forty Creek normally is. The oak is strong in this one. There's a faint hint of, well, the lemony floor wax I recall from childhood. Not quite real lemon, not quite plain wax, but some odd hybrid between the two. It's got a lot of the dried fruit nose that the Whisky Works had, but it's a tad different. Dried strawberries rather than cherries. The vanilla is a strong foundation under all of those other components, at least in the nose. Pepper.

On the tongue, the story is different. It's like my tongue is saying "hey, this reminds me of the Whisky Works stuff we tried" but then is backing off that claim. There are similarities: a long spicy finish, a good amount of oak, a smidgeon of dark chocolate mixed in with the vanilla. But there's something odd here. A bit of leather? Cold tea? There's something that isn't quite integrated, but it's hard to place. Tannins, I guess. I also find that the difference in grain is a bit weird for me. I'm so accustomed to malted barley being the predominant base that when it's corn or rye or wheat or who knows what, I find the taste is a bit odd. Not bad, just odd.

A splash of water definitely brings things together. It cuts out the astringency, letting the vanilla overpower the dark chocolate, and a fresher, grainy taste appear underneath the oak (but still not the right grain according to me). It shortens the finish a bit, but that's all right. All in all, with a splash of water, it turns out quite pleasantly.

In summary, it's good and worth sharing, though I will remain a Scotch drinker rather than a Rye drinker. That's OK, though: the world of whisky is big and varied enough for people of every taste.

Cheers,

Ian

New to the Lounge?

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:03:00 +0000

I've noticed, perhaps due to my L337 H4X0R skillz that there is a significant proportion of readers who are new here. Some of you arrived by searching for my name on the Internet (hello!). Others looked up particular whiskies I've mentioned, or the Whisky Works kit I used. One of you even found yourself here by Googling "whisky cheers fun photo." I hope you found what you were looking for.

In any case, this post is just to orient new visitors to what's going on, or to recap for those who need such a thing. If you know what this place is all about, feel free to skip this one.

The posts can generally be clustered into six separate groups based on a particular project. Not every post is listed below, but most of the interesting ones should be. Some of you may be excited to note that I've started using labels to make navigation a bit easier. Anyhow, here's what we have:

1. Setting Up Your Kit

My first experiences setting up a home ageing kit and examining a ridiculously young whisky can be found in the following posts. There's also a discussion about the maturation speed one can expect in small, living-room-appropriate casks as opposed to 200 to 500 litre barrels typically used in the industry.

2. Emu Oloroso Cream Sherry

I chose to treat my cask with a sherry before the whisky, and that took four weeks. To follow that experiment from fruity beginning to complex end, read these in order:

3. Whisky Works Blended Malt

The kit that I bought was called "Whisky Works" and contained a bottle of whisky of the same name. After the sherry had worked its magic, the Whisky Works went in and stayed there for nine weeks. The end result was darned tasty. You can follow this experiment in the following posts, in order:

Week 1: Where's PT Barnum When I Need Him?, One out of One Noses Agree: Delicious and A Tasteful Discussion
Week 2: A Second Look, Sweet! and A New Taste Sensation
Week 3: The Third Time's a Charm and A Nose by Any Other Name...
Week 4: Turn, Turn, Turn
Week 5: Goodness Gracious and Clash of the Titans
Week 6: I'm Too Sixy and David, Meet Goliath
Week 7: Like the Steps to Heaven
Week 8: Whom do You Appreciate? and NKOTB In the House
Week 9: 350mL and Dressed to the Nines

4. McClelland's Islay Single Malt

Apparently a 5-year-old Bowmore in disguise, I chose the youngest whisky I could find for the next experiment. I was really impressed with how it changed, starting as it did from a rather unpleasant beginning but ending up being quite nice and similar, though clearly not identical, to a more mature Bowmore. It lived in my cask for just over five weeks, and you can read it from beginning to end here:

Week 1: If Only I Could Unremember...
Week 2: In Pursuit of a Silk Purse
Week 3: Where's the Kaboom? There was Supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom? (did nobody catch the Marvin the Martian reference? Sheesh!)
Week 4: Just Like Don Quixote...
Week 5: Grab a Fork For Me, Will You?
Week 5.5: The King is Dead...

5. Glen Parker Speyside

I'm hoping to do the impossible: somehow make a Glen Parker drinkable. We shall see. It's still early going, but I intend to update this post as I go so the list will remain complete. So far the only posts relating to this experiment are:

Week 1: ...Long Live the King!
Week 2: Aesop's Tortoise

6. Other People's Experiments

Other people like my good friend Rob and a fellow I've never met in person named Alex have sent in some tidbits about their own whisky-ageing projects. I've even had the chance to sample some home-aged whisky from other people now. You can read all about these in any order you choose. And if you've got a kit on the go, feel free to share your stories - I'd love to find out how other people are doing, and this is as good a place as any to share tips or warnings.

Notes from Abroad (yes, I know it's linked above as well, but it did come from someone doing his own experiment, so it belongs here, too)
Show and Tell
You're About to be Robbed!
Odds and Sods
Battle Royale!
The True North Strong and Free

Aesop's Tortoise

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Thu, 15 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Many of you will have heard the story of the Tortoise and the Hare. If not, it's one of those ancient tales that has a moral at the end of it: you know, the stories from which you're meant to learn something. In this case, the relevant lesson is the well-known phrase "slow and steady wins the race." Or, in the original (should your browser be so equipped) "Ὅτι πολλαὶ φύσεις ἀνθρώπων εὐφυεῖς εἰσιν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς ῥᾳθυμίας ἀπώλοντο, ἐκ δὲ νήψεως καὶ σπουδῆς καὶ μακροθυμίας τινὲς καὶ φύσεως ἀργῆς περιεγένοντο." And with that, I succeed in applying my years of studying ancient Greek! Doctor Fletcher would be so proud.

Slow and steady is the mantra for the Glen Parker experiment. I notice a difference in the 1.5 weeks it's been in the cask, but the changes are subtle. Much more subtle than those in the McClelland's in its first week, or in the Whisky Works. And to prove it, I'll do something I haven't done in what seems like ages. I'll show you a picture.

[as usual, click the photo to embiggen it]

Do you see it? Can you guess which is the one from the cask and which the bit I left in the bottle? If you can't figure it out, the casked one is on the left, the uncasked on the right. It is very slightly darker than the uncasked version, but the difference is very, very slight.

Observant readers might notice something else: the presence of not one, but two proper whisky glasses. The Spirit of Toronto show included one with the price of admission, and it conveniently matches the one given to me by Premium Bottlers, so I can finally at least pretend to be classy and show y'all whisky in its natural habitat rather than funky-shaped juice glasses.

On the nose, the difference is immediately apparent, yet not shocking. The first difference is that the tar and rubber have reduced. They're still there, but not nearly as overpoweringly so. The grainy hay is still present in all its glory. Added to the nose is a layer of smoke which hasn't integrated, but has definitely done some good nonetheless. There's also the faintest hint of a sweet fruit. Strawberry? Maybe: it's pretty indistinct, and will hopefully become more evident as we continue. It's only very slightly buttery.

The fishiness is still present on the tongue, but it's not in the same place. It starts with a pungent piney, oaky tang with a hint of fruit but not nearly enough, then as it begins to fade, fish and seaweed rear their heads just as the finish begins, leaving the whole affair rather sour and pungent. That's actually the perfect word for it: pungent. It puckers the lips and makes me want to have a drink of water to wash out the taste. Sound bad? It is. But it is an improvement over last week. Buried way down in there is the oak which works, but not in combination with the resinous pine and the fishy seaweed. I'm still looking for vanilla, smoke or the other flavours one would normally like to find, but I'm struggling. I keep thinking I catch them, but they're gone as quickly and as impossible to relocate as Keyser Söze. Oh, well. I'll keep looking next week.

Anyhow, I need to go reward myself with a dram of something tastier.

Until next time,

Ian

Spirit of Toronto, Take Two

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:33:00 +0000

As promised, here's Rob's take on the Spirit of Toronto show we attended over the weekend. Rob took a Masterclass, which I did not. I think it quite altered his perceptions of the evening. Anyway, here's what he had to say:

"In reflection, I think the event was too much, too fast. Being able to sample that many products overloads the taste buds. I had trouble telling the difference. I think a ticket system would have been better. Six drinks of larger size, would have made me more selective, which would allow a better review of the whiskies."

[I disagree with Rob on this point. The reason, I think, for the discrepancy is that Rob sat in Masterclasses for about half or more of the evening, while I just wandered the stalls. I didn't have trouble taking my time and having snacks and water to cleanse the palate after a sample, and I enjoyed being able to sample many, many things. I think next time, I might take a notebook to jot down my impressions so as to better remember them - Ian]

"The master classes were nice as you focused on one particular topic. They did the basic principle of how to properly nose and taste. Add one small drop of water and taste again. If you're really interested in the topic, then going is worth while. The whiskeys in the peat class tasted amazingly different: adding just a drop of water really opens up the flavour. This class I would recommend. Five bucks well spent. The smoking class, not so much. I would pass on that one. There just was not enough time to focus on the topic."

"Tasting Notes (From what I remember)

Isle Jura Superstition - Good, but nothing to write home about.

40 Creek - Taste the same as the stuff in the store. I really wanted to talk to them so tasting stop well worth it.

Premium Bottlers - I think I'll look them up today.

Yoichi - I thought there was a hint of sake, didn't like the taste because of that. [I haven't a clue what sake tastes like, but I found the Yoichi grainier and less integrated or complex than the Yamazaki - Ian]

Yamazaki 12 & 18 - Both really nice. Light taste and body. Tasted Scottish.

Oban - Quite like it.

Cragganmore - Nice and light. I would add it to your list of old faithfuls. Although a little pricey, you can't go wrong.

Laphroaig - He was pouring generous samples. The quarter cask is still my favourite.

Dalmore - quite nice, but again nothing to write home about.

That was all the damage I could do before heading to my classes. I would recommend going to one class to break up the sampling. I would also recommend it be at 8:00 or so. Hence you've sampled, sit a listen and can sample again."

So there you have it. Rob had an excellent time, but felt a bit rushed. I guess attending a couple of classes really does alter one's perception of the evening. I stayed relaxed throughout without a sense of being hurried.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I met up with my friend James the evening before and shared a bit of my remaining Whisky Works whisky with him. He made the critical error of not believing me when I said it was really strong, so took perhaps too big a sip the first time. Nonetheless, after the coughing and sputtering subsided, a slower, more conservative sample proved quite to his liking. After all the time and effort I'd put into it, he'd damn well better have enjoyed it! :-)

Cheers,

Ian

Good Things Come In Pairs

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:43:00 +0000

Hi folks,

I decided to turn my whisky weekend in Toronto into a slightly longer affair, and have still not made it back to Ottawa, so no news on the Glen Parker front for another couple of days. But I thought I'd take a break from the gigantic pile of manuscripts and architectural plans staring at me and share my impressions of the Spirit of Toronto show.

In short, I had a blast.

I went with my friend Rob who has appeared in this blog a time or two. Neither of us was entirely sure what to expect, but we were both impressed. I'll put Rob's comments up shortly as well as my own.

The show was very well laid out and organized. I found I never had to wait to sample something, and the folks at the booths and the snack bar were all friendly. The food (crackers and various fancy cheeses, figs, grapes, noodley Asian things and a beef dish I didn't try) was excellent and made a perfect complement to the whisky. The availability of food and lots of water is commendable: I saw no one rowdy or obviously too much in his cups, thanks in part to the food and non-alcoholic drink.

There were spirits from the United States, Canada, France (a cognac, not a whisky), Scotland, Ireland and Japan. The whiskies also ran the gamut in styles, as you'd expect: light and fruity to heavy and oaky, smokey and peaty to herbal and citrusy...in short, regardless of your tastes, you'd find something. As well, I was pleased to note a number of whiskies in every price range to appeal to both budget-conscious tipplers and those with enough money to go wild and crazy in their whisky selection. There are too many to go through them all, but here are some of the interesting things I found:

They had set up Smokehead right beside The Peat Monster. I'd not tried either, but I understand they're aimed at the same market: young-ish men who like strongly flavoured, smokey and peaty whiskies. I sampled them both, and the Peat Monster was head and shoulders above the competition: a more complex array of tastes with (of course) lots of peat, but a nice lemon and salt and vanilla undertone. Smokehead seemed simpler and so smokey that other flavours were lost. It's also about $10 cheaper, so you get what you pay for.

There were three Japanese whiskies from two distillers: one Yoichi and two Yamazakis. The former was all right, but I found it was too strong in the malt and grain departments and lacked enough peat or smoke. It tasted young, though I'm not sure exactly how old it was. The Yamazakis were very clearly in the style of Scotch. If I hadn't been told they were from Japan, I'd have guessed they were from the British Isles. I'd be happy to have either the 18 or the 12 in my collection, but the price tag is a bit steep.

I, in spite of my reservations, sampled both Maker's Mark and Woodford Reserve: American whiskies. The staff at the Maker's Mark booth was insane. I'm glad that they brought their enthusiasm, but I found it over the top. And providing a selection of drinks blended from their whisky was an interesting, though ultimately unsatisfying experience. When I'm in the mood for a whisky, I want whisky. Not something with mint and sugar syrup. In any case, neither of the American spirits grabbed my attention, and I'll continue to dodge bourbons and their ilk for the time being.

I sampled two Isle of Juras: Superstition (a blend of a few different years ranging from about 14 to 21) and the 16. I was impressed at how different they were. Superstition was very rich and smokey and salty, while the 16 was replete with hints of oak and pine and citrus and heather. I liked them both well enough. I tried a few Glenmorangies. This is a whisky Rob says is kind of his default: if you're not sure what to get, this one will do nicely. And it did. All three that I tried were tasty, though none will be my favourite, and if I'm going to buy a whisky at that price, there are more interesting options.

The Talisker 18 was already gone by the time I reached that table, which is really too bad. But I tried a Cragganmore and Dalwhinnie, neither of which I'd had, believe it or not. Enjoyable, but neither leapt out at me. I couldn't pass up the Lagavulin 16 and it was every bit as awe-inspiring as I remember.

I managed to find the folks from Premium Bottlers and had a really good chat. In addition to the Whisky Works kit on display, they had four whiskies to sample, all of which were quite nice, but not necessarily available in Ontario. Fortunately, their vatting of Linkwood 10 was my favourite and is sold by the LCBO, so I'm in luck. I found it nice and buttery, rich and sweet. They've got another on the way to Ontario stores next year, ~~but I admit my brain's a bit foggy as to which it was (Let me know which it is if you happen to be in the loop!)~~ [Update: it's BRIN: a vatting of malt from Benrinnes with a little bit of Canadian whisky)

If you're wondering why I called this post "Good Things Come In Pairs" it has to do, in part, with meeting the guys who run Premium Bottlers. I knew they were both named Barry beforehand, so wasn't surprised. But over the course of the evening, I was introduced to 4 other people. Two were named Andrew. Two were named Paul. I'm no statistician, but I found that meeting 6 people with three names between them was a bit odd, but hey. Odd is what I do.

Anyhow, this post is far too long, so I'll sign off for now.

For those of you around Toronto next May, do yourselves a favour and check out the show. You won't be disappointed.

Cheers,

Ian

... Long Live the King!

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:10:00 +0000

Where's Jim Phelps when I need him? This mission could be damned near impossible...

Continuing the trend of experimenting with a cheap, barely drinkable whisky, rather than risking a more expensive one, I have selected a Glen Parker Speyside for the next batch. I know what you're thinking. Glen Parker? Am I crazy? Quite possibly, but hey: if I'm going to follow the effects of maturation, why not start with something so young it's offensive?

For the uninitiated, Glen Parker is rather like the mystery meat of the whisky world. No one seems entirely certain what it is. It's a Speyside, with no age mentioned, and here in Ontario it costs about $36 per bottle. It is rumoured to be just a bottling of whatever single malt the independant bottler can get his hands on at the time, such as Glenfiddich or Glenfarclas, that the distillers just want to be rid of rather than besmirch their good names by selling it under their own banner. And, after sampling a bit of it, I can see why.

I challenge anyone to find a good review of the stuff which actually describes it; I have been unsuccessful. I have however found a number of mentions on just how god-awful it really is. It's one of the favourites on the "what whisky would you never buy again" and the "are there really any bad single malts" fora over at Whisky Magazine. Yes. I said fora. Not forums. I didn't spend three long years studying Latin for nothing. Semper ubi sub ubi, my friends.

Linguistic peculiarity aside, I have to concur with the rest of the plebeians out there: Glen Parker Speyside is terrible. Its nose is a weak yet still impressively malodorous blend of such delightful aromas as tar, rubber (like a pencil eraser), wet straw and moss or mildew. Rather like how a stack of old tires and bales of hay would smell if stored in a wet stone cellar. I had been unimpressed by the McClelland's Islay, but I take my hat off and salute the Glen Parker: I had not thought a whisky could smell so unappetizing.

It's a good thing, then, that the taste is quite different from the bouquet. Well, in theory it's a good thing. In reality, it's really no better, merely different. It tastes of fish. I'm not talking the salty tang of a good stiff sea breeze. Nope. I'm talking fish. Along with the piscatorial deliciousness, there's a strong component of pine boughs and resin. There's also some oatmeal. I can't find vanilla, fruit, fresh grass, smoke or any of the other tastes one can commonly associate with whisky. Just fish, pine trees and oatmeal. It makes for rather a pungent, lip-puckering combination.

It also comes in a green bottle. Not that that actually is of any importance, but it's not something I see terribly often. Just another thing to make this particular whisky all the more unique.

So, this is going to be a difficult trial. I think it's likely that the barrel will have lost a reasonable amount of its oakiness by this point, after having had water, sherry, Whisky Works and McClelland's in it already. I imagine, then, that it will take longer than a few weeks to get the Glen Parker to any state even vaguely resembling drinkability. It may not even be possible. But we shall see.

I won't be here to let you know about the Glen Parker experiment next weekend: I'm at the Spirit of Toronto. I'll try to take a camera with me to get a few shots of the show and I'll let you know how it went and how the Glen Parker is coming along early the following week.

Undauntedly yours,

Ian

The King is Dead...

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sat, 03 May 2008 23:32:00 +0000

You might remember that about a week ago I announced that the McClelland's Islay I'd been maturing was good enough for me to call it finished. And if everything had gone to plan, I'd have de-casked the McClelland's earlier this week, and been enjoying it since. But, as will not surprise anyone who knows me at all, I didn't quite manage to get that job done until today. Oh, well. The extra week hasn't hurt it at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

Last time, I'd noted that I found a surprising change in the nose and palate of the whisky. It had become much smokier than the preceding weeks. The floral notes were still there, but the smoke that had been very subtle at the outset had really leapt out and overtaken the other components. I wasn't complaining: it worked pretty darned well.

This week, the nose has retained its smokiness, but there's a stronger biscuity smell to it as well. It's kind of like an oatmeal pancake with a jasmine tea in front of a bouquet of flowers and a wood fire with someone smoking a cigar a few metres away. The barn-yardish pungency in the original has entirely disappeared, and I'm happy beyond words to say that. It was pretty harsh before.

It's quite a mellow dram. The smoke is as apparent in the taste as in the scent. The flowers are still there, as is the biscuit, but the oak is stronger on the tongue than in the nose. The finish is moderately long and quite oaky, but the traces of concord grapes have disappeared. There's just the faintest tiny hint of vanilla buried very deeply in there, barely noticeable. It's a light body, much lighter than Whisky Works.

In re-reading last week's post, I had noticed the spiciness was calming down. That's still very true: it's got an element of cinnamon and cloves, but it's a lot fainter than it had been. It doesn't manage to overpower the other components of the flavour, so it has worked out rather well.

All in all, I'm really happy with what the cask has managed to do to the McClelland's. It's a damned cheap whisky, but a month in the cask definitely makes it taste like a much pricier beverage.

I should be able to get at least one more good use out of the cask before the oak has been sapped of its potency. And to find out what whisky is going in next, you'll have to read on...

Dozo Yoroshiku!

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:03:00 +0000

Knowing my luck, instead of succeeding in my little attempt at being clever by casually throwing around the Japanese phrase for "How do you do," I've just announced that I like to eat shoes with ketchup or some such. I'm confident, though: I looked it up on the Internet, and we all know the Internet is never wrong...

Anyhow, the Japanese is here for a reason. Over the weekend, I caught wind of the results of this year's World Whiskies Awards from one of the finest news sources around: Daily India. I still haven't figured out why Daily India should be the one to break the story, but hey: Indians love their whisky, too, I guess. You can also read about it at the Times, or, if you're the wild and crazy type, at Whisky Magazine, who actually runs the competition.

This year brought a couple of surprises which not coincidentally relate to the title of this post: Japanese whiskies won both the best single malt and best blended whisky category. This year's best single malt is Yoichi 20 Year Old, which I've not had the pleasure of sampling. The best blended whisky is Suntory Hibiki 30 Year Old, which I've also not tried. Bill Murray must be pleased about that choice.

I thought to myself that this might be the ideal time to go out and find some Japanese whisky to give it a shot, but I don't have a spare hundred bucks lying around for the purposes of sampling a new whisky. This stuff ain't cheap!

Fortunately, there are going to be some Japanese whiskies at the Spirit of Toronto show which is now only two short weeks away, so I'll get the chance to try them out then.

Hmm... maybe next year I should submit "Ian's Living Room 9 Weeks Old" for consideration. :-)

Cheers,

Ian

Grab a Fork For Me, Will You?

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:40:00 +0000

A fork? Yep. You know, so I can stick it in: this whisky's done! It's been four weeks, and I am pleased as punch with how things have turned out. It didn't transform into a Bowmore proper by any means, but it became something I'd be happy not only to drink myself, but also to offer my friends.

Something interesting has happened to the nose, and I'm not sure I can figure out why. Not that I'm surprised that it would change in character, but I am perplexed by this particular change. I've been noting a rather steady progression from the barn-yard earthiness with tobacco and jasmine undertones to a more heavily floral, yet buttery and earthy (but not barn-yard earthy) nose with a faint hint of smoke. The interesting change is that the earthiness has disappeared entirely and the smoke has taken its place. It's noticeably smokier than last week, and while it still has the rosy floral quality, it has lost the pungency I commented on. The concord grapes have also chosen to disappear completely.

The smoke evident in the nose is just as strong on the palate. And again, there's been an interesting change that seems out of character with the way things have been going. Just last week I commented on the spiciness I figured my cask was injecting. I had noted a very long, spicy finish with grapes appearing at the tail end.

That's completely changed. It's still spicy, but it's not as boldly so as before. It's mellowed down quite a bit. Overall, the taste is oakier now. The floral and even grassy elements are easier to find. I don't notice the grapes any longer, and the finish is shorter, but not dramatically so. The finish stays oaky now, though.

I'd say I prefer the McClelland's to the Longmorn I have. They haven't gone head-to-head (maybe this week???) but this has much more character. The Whisky Works is still by far the stronger of the two (and it's shockingly getting close to the end of the bottle), and they're so unlike as to be unrecognizable as coming from the same cask, but I like them both quite a bit.

Anyhow, I'll be pulling the McClelland's out of the cask sometime this week, just as soon as I have another bottle to pour in. I figure there's one, maybe two more good uses of the cask still to come before it's time to retire it and get a new one. We know Rob has jumped the pond to choose a Canadian whisky for his second batch. I still haven't decided what I'll do, but I have some ideas.

Until then,

Ian

The True North Strong and Free

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:19:00 +0000

I got a letter from my buddy Rob who has appeared in this blog a few times before. you'll remember he has recently taken his Whisky Works whisky out of the cask. I learned that he's jumped across the pond to try aging a Canadian whisky. Specifically, he's experimenting with a bottle of Forty Creek Barrel Select.

I've never been one to keep quiet about my opinion of most Canadian whisky. Maybe it's because I've only ever had the dirt-cheap stuff, but I've not really found one that suits my palate. I've tried Forty Creek before, however, and wasn't turned off. I guess it's my favourite of the limited number of Canadian whiskies I've sampled. Rob seems to like it quite a bit. In any case, here's what he had to say:

"It's been in the wood for about two weeks now. The cask has given the rye a spiciness. It has also sucked out some of the sweetness. It's getting quite tasty. I think priming the casks with only water must have that effect on the whisky. It draws our the sweet and leaves a 'raw' taste to it. I quite like it."

I asked him to clarify what he meant by "a raw taste" and he replied simply that he meant spicier and less sweet: essentially it's becoming dryer as it ages, rather than sweeter.

Rob and I have noted the same things: the cask seems to impart a strong spiciness to the spirit. I quite like it. And it's incredibly powerful: when my buddy Jim was over the other day, he decided to do a home made blend of some Té Bheag and the Whisky Works I have here, and we found that even a few drops of the latter gives the former a FAR longer finish, with a solid oak and cinnamon flavour. That's right: only a few drops. Damned strong stuff!

Remember that it's only a few weeks until the Spirit of Toronto show. I'll be there, as will Rob, along with Premium Bottlers (the guys who make the Whisky Works kit) and a number of other players in the whisky and spirits business. Hope to see some of you there!

Cheers,

Ian

Just Like Don Quixote...

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:21:00 +0000

...I am dreaming that impossible dream. Well, maybe not so impossible after all.

The players: McClelland's Islay. A Whisky Works cask. Three weeks.
The game: to transform the rather insipid whisky into something more robust, like a Bowmore.
The score: it's no Bowmore, but hot damn, that's turning out nicely!

The barnyard touch in the nose has disappeared. Instead, it's just earthy, like freshly-turned sod. But it's even more powerfully floral. WAY more so than the uncasked, and far different from the Whisky Works that was in the same cask a few weeks ago. The tobacco and jasmine in the original have transformed into roses and violets. But there's a butteriness to it as well that reminds me of my mom's home baked cookies (which, I am sad to report, she did not bake when I was visiting my folks last weekend. Sigh). I had reported concord grapes a couple weeks back, but they're really hard to pick out now. I'd describe it as a combo of buttery oatmeal cookies, flowers and a faint whiff of smoke on the nose. It is, however, just a bit too pungent still. I can't put my finger on what that pong is coming from, but there's a bit of something sour or under-ripe. Weirdly enough, the original seems a bit saltier on the nose, which I hadn't noticed before.

Taste-wise, I've described the original pretty well, as have others, and it's nothing special. After only three weeks in the cask, though, it's coming into its own. I think my cask must impart a long, spicy finish, because the McClelland's in there now has one, and the Whisky Works had one as well. They're not identical whatsoever, but they share a long finish filled with oaky aromas and spices. The McClelland's exhibits a bit of fruit juice...actually, it's the grapes that had nearly disappeared in the nose. They're popping up at the end of the finish, after the oak subsides. It's still a damned floral, sweet dram, like rose water in an oak bowl.

Best of all: no dog poo. Zilch. It's gone. It's all flowers and oak and a smoky undercurrent. Not nearly as earthy as it was when it started, which is nice.

To me, this suggests that we're almost done with the McClelland's after only a few weeks. It was older than the Whisky Works was when it went in, and it was also only 40%, so leaving it in too much longer will start to drop its alcohol content past the point where I find it achieves maximal tastiness.

So, off to hunt for another bottle. Perhaps I should branch out and try something Irish, Canadian or even American. We shall see...

Cheers,

Ian

Battle Royale!

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:51:00 +0000

I don't know what's more fitting. Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson? George Foreman and Muhammad Ali? Nacho Libre and Ramses? Regardless, it was a fine competition featuring two strong competitors that really packed a solid punch. I'm talking, as you might guess, about the head-to-head match between my sherried Whisky Works whisky and my buddy Rob's unsherried version.

I was surprised at the similarities: they were both quite spicy and packed a strong alcoholic kick. They were exactly the same colour, which really surprised me: I had thought the sherried version would be much darker and redder, but nope: even Rob's version was dark russet/orange/amber. Both had a sweeter nose than palate, and they both had a long, spicy finish.

The differences were less surprising, but quite dramatic nonetheless: Rob's whisky had a strong herbal, malty sweetness to it, whereas mine was closer to cooked fruit. Also, and very weirdly, the smoke was more evident in mine which was the exact opposite of what I'd expected, given that the sherry I used took a lot of smoke out of the cask. Under the heat of the alcohol (or with the addition of a bit of water) Rob's was the lighter of the two with cut grass, cinnamon, vanilla and malt jumbled together.

And here's what Rob had to say:

"The sherry version was certainly more fruity and had the better nose. Sweat and inviting. The oak version, has a very difficult nose to figure out. Grass, Hay, Straw ?? Something rural.

I found the two as similar as they were different in taste. I could tell (although perhaps not in a blind taste test) that they were the same. Similar to comparing a 12 year Glenfiddich to a 15. Same overall taste, but subtly different. The sherry version was more mellow and balanced, where the oak version had an unblended taste to it. Lots of flavours, nothing uniform. You would get a mellow watered down taste and then a sharp unwatered taste.

Perhaps, I noticed this because we added the water immediately before sampling as opposed to the sherry version which had been watered down for a few days. Or perhaps it was because I didn't stir or mix the water into my whisky; I just added water in and had a drink.

The sherry version had more of a pleasant sweet taste on the pallet without a harsh overpowering alcohol taste. I would actually say that there was too much water in the sherry batch. It tasted a bit too watery.

The oak whisky had a 'raw taste' to it. Very much like JB whisky would; where although it's a uniform taste, it tastes blended and undefined. By priming the cask with sherry, it masked the 'rawness' and provided a more uniform and refined taste. This might also explain why I found it to be more like a fine Rye. Most Rye that I drink is blended and has that raw taste and nose."

So there you have it. We both agree that there's some tastiness in the sherried and unsherried versions, and both are noticeably from the same origin, but the differences are notable.

Cheers,

Ian

Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:40:00 +0000

Hi folks,

Sorry for the longer-than-usual silence. I'm just back from my whirlwind tour of such esteemed communities as Toronto, Orangeville, Kitchener and Cambridge. I had fun, but it's good to be home. And to make up for the delay in posting, you're going to get TWO - count'em - TWO posts over the next couple of days.

First off, cast your mind back a couple of weeks (or to last week, I guess) when I said that Jim, the good and fluffy doctor himself, would be cask-sitting for me. Funny how it's really easy to get friends to say "yes" to babysitting a cask and getting a free sample. :-) Jim did his job admirably, and here's what he had to say (assuming I am reading his cuneiform-style "handwriting" correctly):

"Nose - balanced smokey caramel becoming butterscotch
Taste - again caramel with a nice long smokey finish. Well-integrated, front-to-back of tongue - start to finish.
Verdict - Yum! (or KABOOM!) I'd be happy to drink it as it is now."

The thing that pleases me most about Jim's review, other than the distinct lack of "dog poo" anywhere in the description, is that he thinks it's ready to drink right away. I like the fact that it appears quite balanced after only a couple of weeks. I'm going to give it a try on the weekend as usual and see what shakes. If it takes only a few weeks to turn a run-of-the-mill McClelland's into a really nice, drinkable whisky, then I'm right chuffed.

Which I guess raises another question: what next? I should be able to get a few more uses out of the cask before it loses its potency, so it's high time for some ideas for the next whisky to experiment with. What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Ian

In Pursuit of a Silk Purse

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:15:00 +0000

So, the McClelland's Islay has been at it for a week now, and it's time to check in. You'll remember that I was pretty unimpressed with it before any casking action had taken place, and I'm very keen to find out what has happened. The Whisy Works whisky transformed pretty quickly in its first week, then slowed to a more gentle transformation in later weeks. And the McClelland's? Well...

Concord grapes. Ripe red cherries. A bouquet of flowers. These are all leaping out of the nose at me, and none of them are present in the original spirit. Underneath it all, the same earthy, barn-yardish tinge is still there, as is the unmentionable odour first identified by Dr. Whisky. :-)

The original spirit reveals a stronger herbal quality in the comparison than it had just on its own. I guess with the extra bit of sherry flavouring from the cask, the herbal scent is turning into a floral one. They're both about equally smokey. And they're exactly the same colour.

Taste-wise, I'm pleased to report an improvement. The concord grape evident in the nose is still there in the taste, and the earthiness is cut back some. The smoke is still there, underneath everything, but the tarry finish I reported last time is less evident. The finish is longer and warmer, with a smokey caramel underlying a ripe cherry taste. Throughout is a fresh berry taste. A hint of strawberry and blueberry, some cherry. Not the tartness of raspberries, though. Sweeter. It's interesting, since the Whisky Works exhibited a good amount of fruit on the nose, but less so on the taste, and it was along the lines of cooked cherries or dried apricots. Not this time: it's a lighter, fresher taste. It's a bit at odds with the earthiness, but I'm hoping for better integration as it continues to mature.

So, after the first week, I have learned a few things:

The McClelland's is far tastier after a bit more maturation, but needs some more work
It exhibits some of the spiciness of the Whisky Works 9-week-old, but doesn't taste anywhere near the same, with the fruit in the nose and on the palate being fresh berries rather than cooked or dried anything
The whisky has either been treated with caramel, or the cask is losing its ability to quickly alter the colour of a spirit

So far, it bodes well. I, or rather Jim, will fill you in next week. Remember that I'll be away for a few days. And remember also that I'll be hitting the Spirit of Toronto in May, so I'll hopefully see a few of you there.

Until next time,

Ian

Odds and Sods

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:28:00 +0000

Just a couple quick notes today. I heard from my friend Rob again. He's my buddy who has been aging his Whisky Works whisky since December. Like me, he found the angels had been rather greedy. Unlike me, he hadn't been using a humidifier, and had aged his whisky a number of weeks longer. He found he was left with about 340mL of whisky which was still good and strong. Here's how he described it to me:

"The colour is about the same shade as last time. I added a bit of water to my taste sample this time. There is still a very powerful iodine nose and taste. Once the fire on your tongue is finally put out, the finish is still there. Very long and pleasant. The nose smells like a fine rye whiskey. Sweet and oaky. There is something pleasantly sweet to the taste, I think it's the hints of cinnamon I described last time. I can also taste the oak now..."

I'm not sure what to make of "fine rye whiskey" since I'm not generally a fan of rye, but there you have it. It's nice to see that the months in the cask haven't reduced its alcohol percentage too significantly: he still wants to add water to cool it down. That means that the 340mL will work out to quite a bit more volume with added water factored in.

In other news, I'm planning to attend the Spirit of Toronto annual whisky gala on May 10. If any of you are going, let me know, and say hi if you see me. Although, as many of you haven't the faintest idea what I look like, that might be difficult. Perhaps I should post a photo. Or wear a name tag. :-)

I haven't gone to one of these whisky galas before, so I'm not sure what to expect. But it looks like a lot of fun, and I don't get to Toronto as much as I used to. Speaking of which...

The final bit of news is that I will be away in a couple of weeks. In Toronto, actually, but not for any whisky-related events. Just going to get some quality time with some of my peeps. The upshot is that I'll not be here to sample my whisky (gasp!) or post anything to the blog (double gasp!). Fear not, however! My buddy Jim will be looking after the cask, carefully rotating it, and sampling the whisky on my behalf. So I'll temporarily hand over the keys to the lounge, and you can hear what Jim has to say. It should be good. He's promised to use the word "kaboom."

But you'll hear from me once more before my mini-vacation, so I'll sign off and see you in a few days.

Cheers,

Ian

If Only I Could Unremember...

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:00:00 +0000

I blame Dr. Whisky. He seems like a nice guy and all, but he wrote a review that a reader posted to this blog, and which I read. The review said, among other things, that McClelland's Islay has, as a component of its taste, "a touch of dog poo." Don't believe me? Read it yourself!

Now, I have been having trouble shaking that description of the taste of the very cheap bottle of McClelland's Islay that I picked up for the purposes of continuing my experiments in cask-land. I thought he must be crazy, and had a few sips. Nope. Not crazy. It's there. Now maybe if I hadn't read the review, I'd not have had dog poo on my mind when tasting it and might not have thought of that description, but now it's the only bloody thing I find in there!

Sigh...

Anyhow, I admit that I didn't buy the McClalland's for its immediate tastiness. I bought it because it's cheap, available here in Ottawa, and rumoured to be a 5-year Bowmore. I have no idea if it's had a little or a lot of caramel added, or if it really is a Bowmore, but it's worth playing with.

My initial impression jives pretty well with what the doctor said. Its nose is definitely earthy. Barn-yardy is more like it, if you ask me. A bit biscuity, a bit floral. Tobacco? Jasmine?

On the tongue, there's that inescapable dog poo flavour. I don't find it exactly pleasant, but it's not as strong as you might expect. It's got a tarry finish. I find it a bit sour, actually, all the way through. Like black tea left to cool. It's drinkable, but it's not really to my liking.

But that's just fine by me! I want to see what will happen to it in the cask. And I think the only way it can go is up. But what I really am most curious about it will compare to the Whisky Works whisky that came out of the cask today. Same cask, very different whiskies going in. Will the cask make them more similar? Will they still be dramatically different when they come out? Who knows? Hopefully whatever happens, it'll be interesting.

If indeed this is a 5-year old Bowmore, then it will be very interesting to compare the results of my aging with a bottle of official Bowmore from the LCBO. With the Whisky Works bottle, there's no older equivalent against which I could compare. But I can go buy Bowmore at the store and see how the McClelland's rates after a few weeks. Buying a bottle of scotch to improve my experimentation sounds like a grand idea to me. :-)

In other news, I successfully made applejack from my friend's homemade cider. It's stronger, with a much bolder apple flavour than the cider alone, and is still even though the cider was not (no surprise). The 2 litres of cider produced about 500mL of applejack, which isn't bad at all in my books. It's sitting in my fridge with some oak chips in it.

"Oak chips?" you ask? Yep. I have only one cask, and it has whisky in it. Applejack is supposed to be made in an oak cask, but I'm not keen on buying another cask for one experiment. I fear that the apple flavour would infuse the cask too much, rendering it useless for anything else afterwards. I'm also not sure I'll even like the applejack when it's done. So, oak chips it is.

The pro: they're cheap

The cons: they're specifically made for home wine makers rather than home whisky agers, so they're not the right kind of oak for doing anything whisky-related. They're raw: not charred, barely toasted, and they smell mildly astringent. My cask, presumably because of the charring, smelled rather nice. These don't. Sure, I can tell they're oak, but they're lacking refinement. Maybe I could use them for brandy or sherry, and then use them for whisky, but I'll stick with the cask. I have no idea what effect they'll have on the applejack, but we shall see.

I also have to say that owning a cask is far more manly than owning a baggie of oak chips. I've had several guests exclaim how badass I am for maturing whisky in my own barrel. I can't imagine anyone going "Dude! No WAY!" when looking at a pile of oak chips. But you never know. My friends are weird. :-)

Until next week,

Ian

Dressed to the Nines

noreply@blogger.com (Ian) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:08:00 +0000

[clicking the photo will embiggen it]

And there it is. I know I haven't shown side-by-side photos of late, but I figured I should for this one last time. We have You can see that the whisky has transformed from a really pale yellow to a deep red-orange. In the bottle, it's even more pronounced. Come to think of it, why don't I let you see for yourself?

[clicking the photo will embiggen it]

From left to right, these are:

McClelland Islay
Longmorn 15
Té Bheag
Talisker 10
Oban 14
Whisky Works 9 week old

The Whisky Works is by far the darkest whisky I own. It's deeply, deeply, red orange. I don't know what would happen if I watered it down to 40% and I'm unwilling to do so, as it's an irreversible process, so we'll just have to live with the mystery.

The nose is wonderful and complex. I would say that this is the nicest nose of any whisky in my collection. It's a lot bolder than any of the others, that's for sure. It's robust. Oban and Talisker are also wonderful, but they're really delicate in comparison. I detect spices, raisins, brown sugar, oak, toffee, butter, chocolate and vanilla. The faintest salty tang, just a hint of grass, and such a subtle smoke that you'd miss it if you weren't looking.

The un-aged version is insipid in comparison. Malt vinegar, grass and grain. The transformation is astonishing.

The palate is also very, very nice, though different from the nose. The oak really comes through all the way from start to finish, as does a warming spice. A nice wave of butterscotch comes through right in the middle, followed by dried cherries, raisins and apricots. Underneath, a nice vanilla and dark chocolate combo. When I hold it in my mouth, the fruit becomes much more pronounced. It smells sweeter than it tastes. There's a pungency to it that's difficult to place. Marsh? Seaweed? Tar? Not quite any of those, but something along those lines. I don't know: it works, whatever it is. The finish moves from oak to prune and back again, with a nice warming glow throughout and unsweetened chocolate creeping through underneath it all.

This time, I added a splash of water to see what happens. The water is charcoal-filtered and thus pretty tasteless, which is good in this case. The nose becomes more subtle immediately. The spice drops right down, and the butter and brown sugar come together in dramatic fashion. It's also got more malt on the nose, and more smoke. It smells very smooth.

Water makes it sweeter on the palate. The bitter dark chocolate is replaced by milk chocolate, and the raisin-cherry-apricot combo is more apparent. The oak is still there, but it's more understated. More butterscotch as well. The finish remains long, but the dark chocolate undertones have turned into a semisweet chocolate wave. It's less pungent, less tangy, and nicer for it.

Overall, I'd say that neat, it's a pretty good whisky. With just a splash of water, it's a very good whisky. I'll be having some people over this week for a tasting party, so I'll pass on their judgements when I get the chance.

Now, I've already got the cask started on its next assignment, but I'm going to leave you in suspense and post that tomorrow. But if you think really, really hard, I've left you a clue as to what it might be in this very post. Good hunting!

Cheers,

Ian