Tasting Notes: Red Breast: 12 Year

Red Breast: 12 Year (Irish Single Pot Still Whiskey: 12 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Light banana skin to gold.

Viscosity: Generally very slow puckering that barely breaks into streaks.

Nose; Light ripe banana skins. Some alcohol prickle. Shredded wheat. Caramel. Pineapple. Water lightens the aroma.

Body: Still an alcohol touch. Pears in custard. Banana. The alcohol effect picks up over time. Water really mellows the fire and makes the flavour more malt and biscuits styled

Finish: Pear and malt chocolate. Apples. Smooth sheen. Water makes digestive biscuits come out and adds banoffee pie.

Conclusion: After visiting this one many a time I thought I had best review it.  Oddly this sampling found the whiskey the most flavoursome that I have ever tried it. How auspicious.

This has always seemed a slightly fiery whiskey when taken neat, so it took me a bit of time to unveil the flavours within. It isn’t badly burning, but there is a noticeable alcohol element. Water does a great job of dampening the fire, but it does remove some of the high points from the main body. The finish seems bullet proof though and works the best of the whole drink.

I’m getting ahead of myself again though aren’t I? This is a whiskey with a lovely feel, like banana skin. Coincidentally it has the flavour of banana as well which makes for a nice thematic touch. The whole thing is wrapped around a predominantly apple and pear body. In a way it makes me think of what St Georges Whisky may be like when it grows up – we can but see.

It has a good balance of texture and flavour, a lasting sweetness and good fruit elements. Despite the occasional fire it still feels dessert like, the alcoholics cheesecake perhaps.

With water it is very easy to drink and the banana touch complements the green fruit well. The combination givens the result of a thicker flavoured whisky than those elements would usually match. Despite that it never feels heavy; in fact at times the spirit feels like it could easily evaporate from your tongue. Overall a fine fresh whisky, light in feel but not in taste.

Background: Drunk at the Raven. This is part of my attempt to branch back out into Irish Whiskies after not giving them the attention they deserve for a while.  I had a bottle of this a while back and enjoyed it, and since The Raven do nicely over sized measures it seemed like a good time to revisit and see how it holds up to my memory. Investigating the term “Pot Still Whiskey” it seems that it is generally triple distilled but what makes it distinctly “pot still” is that does not use purely malted barley. Ok I copied that off wikipedia, but it hold up with what I had heard before so may not be a complete lie. The term seems odd as best I can tell Single Malt whisky uses pot stills the same as “Pot Still” whiskey so it seems a not overly useful descriptive term. Huh. Maybe I should look into it more.

Tasting Notes: Cooley: Tyrconnell

Cooley: Tyrconnell (Irish Single Malt Whiskey: No Age Statement: 40% ABV)

Visual: Light grain with an apple juice lilt.

Viscosity: Lots of thin fast streaks.

Nose: A mix of lighter notes and cream. A touch of alcohol fire, but very light. Apples, pears and grain fields.

Body: Apple. Cream. Smooth. There is awareness of alcohol but it doesn’t burn. A sugared crumble dessert dusting.

Finish: Vanilla and toffee. Maybe toffee apple since there is apple elements as well. Gingerbread. Chocolate malt drinks. Raisins.

Conclusion:  This is a very light and easy going whiskey. From the aroma on you can feel that the alcohol has been muted. It is present, but that whiskey burn is never really present even if you take your time savouring the spirit. Because of this I didn’t add water to this one.  The delicate texture of the body felt like it would be dashed by the introduction of even a small amount of water.

The texture is delicate, and borders on being considered thin initially. This actually isn’t as harmful as you would imagine as the flavours it plays with are light and fruity.  A heavier whiskey would run roughshod over these delicate flavours.  My fellow taster noted a slight peppery touch that I had not. A bit of examination suggest that this may be a subtle intrusion of the alcohol into the apple sweetness. This extra touch gives a light edge to demarcate the boundaries of the flavours.

It is a whiskey that takes a while to open up. Maybe it is me being accustomed to the heavier styles but it took until the latter half of the whiskey before the flavour built up enough to notice the subtle extra touches like gingerbread. This helped round it out, again without becoming overbearing.

The style here is more careful that even the lowland Scottish whisky style. I make the comparison as I am more accustomed to the Scottish range, but from my experience with Irish whiskey this is light and smooth by their standards as well. It is very easy to get into but builds up nicely giving a few extra layers over time, especially in the finish.

I wouldn’t call it a favourite yet, the early thinner texture is not bad, but not quite to my preferences. However it is a very delicate and yet enjoyable drink. One to open the night with, or to open up the concept of whiskey to people who would be put off by a harsher introduction.  Aside from that fun digression from the heavier styles. Not bad at all.

Background: According to the ever reliable Wikipedia, most Tyrconnell casks are bottled at 15 years of age. By the way that bit about Wiki being reliable was sarcasm. It can be hard to get that across in print. Drunk at the tasting rooms, I decided to go with this one as I have been aware that I have not really been showing much attention to the added e form of whiskey and so thought I would remedy that. Apparently (i.e. Wiki  again told me this) this whiskey was named after a racehorse – since there is a picture of a horse on the bottle, who knows, that may even be true.

Tasting Notes: Pappy Van Winkle: Family Reserve: 15 Year

Pappy Van Winkle: Family Reserve: 15 Year (American Bourbon: 15 Years: 53.5% ABV)

Visual: A very dark rich amber.

Viscosity: Quite a loose mix of streaks.

Nose: Wheat and rye crackers. Quite a tingle at this point. Dry granite. Orange rind, possible liqueur like in style.  Slight sourness with water.

Body: Smooth. Spicy red grapes. Alcohol fire builds up after a while but is not immediately evident.  Vanilla toffee and glacier cherries. Water makes smoother and adds custard touches.

Finish: Milk chocolate and vanilla toffee. Orange liqueur again. With water becomes more bitter chocolate like.

Conclusion: I’m always unsure with higher abv bourbon on if I should add water or not.  The extra alcohol tends to make the drink more fiery which can hide the flavour, but most bourbons I’ve tinkered with don’t seem to react particularly well to water. Well in my experience anyway, would be interesting to get others views on this.

This is a pretty good case in point. It is significantly smoother and more easy going than the twelve year, which does it credit considering the abv, even better it plays with similar spice and red grape flavour that made the twelve year enjoyable.

However even with this smoother version, if you hold it on your tongue for a while to enjoy the sensation you find that the alcohol presence is soon made felt. At that point the smooth vanilla toffee and spice are pretty much concealed to the finish.

Now with tinkering it seems that water in moderation does quite well, allowing easier appreciation of the almost liqueur styling running through it, and also seems to bring out a custard sweetness.

The burn does still come in quicker than I would like, limiting your time to enjoy it. Enough  play with water smoothes even that out, but that point a lot of the vibrant spicy richness is also lost.

Looking back at the twelve year review to compare I am reminder of how much these two share in their main flavours and styles. This reacts better to water and is significantly smoother. While they have similar play to them, the 15 year doesn’t have quite the instant wow of the twelve year, instead pacing itself more over the entire drink. The spice and orange is more restrained, but similarly doesn’t burn out as quick.

This I would say this is the better bourbon, while it does not impress as instantly I found myself enjoying its charm to the end.

Now just to try the twenty year version.

Background: An odd thing I noticed on this one. It describes itself as a younger version of the 20 year old pappy van winkle.  Which I guess means they consider the 20 year version the default. Bloody hell that’s old for bourbon, I will have to get round to trying it at some point.  Drunk during the day at the Rummer Hotel. It was a relaxing day, and I enjoyed talking with the friendly and knowledgeable bar staff. A pleasant way to pass time I must say.

Tasting Notes: St Georges Distillery: The English Whisky Company: Chapter 6

St Georges Distillery: The English Whisky Company: Chapter 6:Unpeated(English Single Malt Whisky: 3 Years: 46% ABV)

Visual: Light grain colour.

Viscosity: A mix of fast streaks.

Nose:  Light apples. Moderate alcohol. Planed wood. Pear drops. Light sugared crumble. White wine.

Body: Apples. Quite the spark of alcohol, almost metaphorically quicksilver spirit feel. Menthol. Pear. Milk chocolate. Water adds a touch of plums at the back. Also makes sweeter, more apple crumble with custard this time. White grapes.

Finish: Dry, white grapes. Milk chocolate. Really feels the alcohol here.

Conclusion: I’m not much of one for patriotism. The fact that this thing wraps itself around the English flag does little for me but a wry smile and a shake of the head.

However it’s whisky, and new. Two things that do attract my attention, so let’s give this thing a fair shake.

It is evidently young, a touch fiery, but even at this point it is boding well. Fresh and fruity, it has all green fruit for the flavour. Lots of pears and apples, sweet and occasionally grape like. It has that kind of quicksilver nature I first ran into years ago with Canadian Club, which I attribute to its youth.  However the same youth combined with the freshness and raw level of apple fruitiness makes your mouth tingle pleasantly and you feel revitalised in the sipping of its flavour.

A bit of water does help mellow it. I mean it still feels a tad raw but also much less fiery. It is still closer to spirit than whisky in its feel –it hasn’t had long enough to develop that distinctive whisky character, even though at three years it can legally call itself that.

For all its youth and fire I like this whisky. It is raw but lively and it has a very distinctive character to call it’s own. I will be interested to watch it as it matures to see if it enhances this character, or if it loses what makes it fun as it gains the distinctive whisky character.

Worth keeping an eye on.

Background: The first English whisky in over a hundred years they say. I must admit it took me a while to care. We do have access to a perfectly good bunch of whisky distillers just across the border in Scotland and even more a short plane ride away in Ireland. It’s not like there is this huge untapped market thing going on here. I mean come on, calling it the “St Georges Distillery” and going with white and red colour scheme – could you make it a bigger bunch of flag waving horsecrap if you tried? Still, it is whisky, and a chance to watch it grow and mature, and that more than anything else gained my attention. So on a nice relaxing days whisky wandering I gave it a shot over at the Star. Anyone who points out the hypocrisy between my distaste for flag waving patriotism and my blatant Yorkshire bias on beer reviews will be met with a shrug and not much else.

Tasting Notes: Connoisseurs Choice: Royal Brackla 1991

Gordon and MacPhail: Connoisseurs Choice: Royal Brackla 1991 (Scottish Highland Single Malt Whisky: 20 Years: 46% ABV)

Visual: Thick gold.

Viscosity: Only a few streaks. Medium sized and slow.

Nose: Toffee. Planed wood. Mild lime influence. Shortbread. Heather. Slight sulphur. Water makes the heather more emphasised.

Body: Moderate oak that grows quickly. Slight alcohol is noticeable. Custard. Walnuts.  Water makes smoother. Adds lime and chestnut honey.

Finish: Quite dry and oaken. Acorns? Light nuts and moss. Water makes sweeter, adding chestnut honey again.

Conclusion: A whisky that has escaped review for a while based on the misapprehension that I had already reviewed it.  Thankfully the old green tree nearly always has a bottle in. So I dropped by to correct my mistake.

Let’s talk about the whisky as it is with water added, as without that it is an overly oak dominated and touch fiery whisky. So not at its best to say the least. Water allows it to show its best elements, that of a more mellow nutty style which mingles with a light sweetness to give a kind of chestnut honey element which is quite soothing.

Now it does always keep that oak dryness around the edges. When you finish a sip the mix of alcohol and the oak leaves you quite dry and parches. It is soothing, but one that leaves you thirsty.

It doesn’t vary much from what I’ve just described. It is quite single note, pretty much a nut cluster of a whisky. Despite that it is quite reasonable. Straightforward but with a finish that just doesn’t, well, finish. You can take your time with this one, let the flavour just hand there without needing to sip again. It is one that I would imagine would suit a distinguished evening party. You do not concentrate on it, but allow the flavour to hang there as you converse with others, possibly with a wood fire beside you to add to the aromas you experience.

So not a favourite whisky, but I can see its place in the whisky world.

Background: Bottled in 2011, this Royal Brackla whisky was drunk as part of a relaxing day, wandering the whisky pubs of Bath and sampling a few spirits in a leisurely fashion. Taking a photo of this bottle resulted in a few jokes from the locals, resulting in a quick explanation of doing the reviews. It’s odd how rarely I need to do that. Royal Brackla is one I’ve had a few times, but only independent bottlings. I will have to seek out an official bottling at some point to compare. This was a brand new bottled, opened before my eyes.

Tasting Notes: Springbank: 10 Year

Springbank: 10 Year (Scotland Campbeltown Single Malt Whisky:10 Years: 46% ABV)

Visual: Pale grain gold.

Viscosity: Quite fast mixed thick streaks.

Nose: Mud, grass and slightly oily. Peat. Dried beef, or maybe cured ham actually. Sulphur – egg. Lightens with water.

Body: Oak. Syrup. Malt loaf. Light custard. Dried beef jerky. Peat. Tiny touch of salt.  Milk chocolate. Very potent. Oily. Grassy. Water makes grassier and more open. Adds slight raisins but apart from that doesn’t alter the flavours much.

Finish: Smoke. Dry. Touch of salted beef.  Touch of bitter chocolate. Lightly grassy. Black cherry hints. Water makes more chocolate and grass but doesn’t hide the smoke. Slight plum and spice comes out here.

Conclusion:  My old friend. Springbank 10. How has it taken so long for me to get around to doing a review of it? Ok, yes that pretty much gives away that this is going to be a positive review doesn’t it?

Well frankly that fits the whisky. From the first you can tell it is going to be good. A grassy dry character with peat and sulphur. Lots of hints of what would usually be Island or Islay characteristics balanced with nuance and care. These normally challenging characteristic show themselves in a restrained yet highly aromatic front that give a hint of what is to come.

The body comes in forcefully. Dried beef and lets loose with all the elements the nose promised. Sweet syrup and chocolate touches mesh with the massive front of those aroma promised characteristics and lead into a smoke finish.  There is a distinct grassy style that I would normally associate with lighter whiskys rather than this booming beast.

Sweet and smoky, grassy and peaty. Oily into a dry finish. It is a juggling act of flavours. In fact it is odd that adding water does so little to expand it. Possibly it’s because it managed to present so much already up front. Water adds  a touch of spice and dark fruit while quelling the fire somewhat, but generally the water just allows the main characteristics to roam better.

It is a challenging whisky, and thus not for all. It is not challenging like the heavier Islays where one or two elements are pushed to the extreme. It is however forthright, robust and thick textured and while restrained more than Islay it does not compromise on the depth of the peat and smoke flavour.

All in all an old favourite of great depth and intensity.

Background: Campbeltown. I first encountered the name when reading  Aeneas Macdonald’s book “Whisky” in which he described the Campbeltowns as “The double basses of the whisky orchestra”. So as soon as I could I hunted down a bottle of Campbeltown  whisky to try. I sometimes wondered what would have happened if I had found Glen Scotia first, but thankfully I did not, I found Springbank and thus a love of the region was born.  There are very few Distilleries in the area now. Glen Scotia, and Springbank who turn out Springbank Hazelburn and Longrow. Springbank also own the third distillery of the area who make the new Kilkerran whisky.  This particular bottle was a luck find, It was at a local supermarket for a ridiculously low price. When I asked why it turns out it was an end of line bottle that they had to get rid of, so despite being perfectly fine spirit, they sold for a knock down price. I of course bought it. While drinking this I listened to the album “The Silent Enigma” by Anathema. It seemed somehow appropriate.

Tasting Notes: Balvenie: Double Wood

Balvenie: Double Wood (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: 12 Year: 40% ABV)

Visual: Just slightly reddened gold.

Viscosity: Quite thick fast streaks.

Nose: Blackberry bramble bush. Vanilla toffee. Pencil shavings.

Body: Blueberry. Light oak Golden syrup. Slight fire. Apple crumble, Milky chocolate. Liquorice. Cake sponge.

Finish: Planed wood. Milky chocolate and caramel. Toffee. Digestive biscuits. Slight Christmas spice.

Conclusion: Damn, wish I had the chance to try this with water.  While the aroma is quite weak the body has quite a touch of fire which did work to mask the flavour.  A pity as what you do get is interesting. Blueberry fruitiness, and slight spice. A nice combination if not overly forthright.

It does seem to be aiming for a subtlety of character that the alcohol burn works against.  It is slightly dessert like with cake sponge and crumble like elements emphasising this.  Again I think water would have helped massively here – potentially make a good accompaniment to drier desserts.

As well as the fire the main flaw is the finish which seems quite short.  It’s a nice enough whisky and has a decent mix of textures and flavours.  Overall not bad and the fruit and cake (though not fruitcake) mix bodes well. As tried it is a touch lacking, but if I get the chance to revisit with water in hand I will take another look and update you.

Background: Drunk at the royal oak.  Balvenie has been ok for me so far, but never so much so that I actively seek them out.   There is a Caribbean cask release that I have had recommended to me but never seen it turn up anywhere.   The bottle refers to maturation in traditional whisky oak and sherry finish, which I take to mean apredominantly bourbon ageing before the sherry – the aforementioned “Doublewood”.  As you may have guessed already, I didn’t get the chance to add water to this whisky, A pity. Also, as you may have noticed another none too great photo. Dammit.

Tasting Notes: Glen Grant: Majors Reserve

Glen Grant: Majors Reserve (Scottish Speyside Single Malt Whisky: No Age Statement: 40% ABV)

Visual: Light banana gold.

Viscosity: Quite even. Multiple slow but thick streaks.

Nose: Quite heavy feel. Lightly sweet though. Heather. Light nutmeg. Water makes slightly sharp.

Body: Custard. Kiwi and lime. Light apple crumble. Light dry nuttiness. Water smoothes and enhances the nuttiness and adds a slight chocolate touch.  Overall the whisky is quite crisp in texture. Even more water brings out a real chunk of stewed apples.

Finish: Unobtrusive. Oak. Bitter chocolate and orange. Water adds a lime touch. Quite dry.

Conclusion: So I’ve done top and tail years wise on Glen Grant. The Methuselah aged 45 Year and this entry level bottling. I have to admit neither have really grabbed me. A quite crisp whisky with light citrus fruit and nutty undertones. It seems almost minimalist in a way. It has a definite character that declares it as whisky, but the evident flavours seem slight.

Maybe it’s a flaw in my taste range rather than the whisky but no one element really grabbed me.  A bit of water play does help, adding a lot to the apple elements and bringing them to the forefront. In this state it is an unobtrusive but fruity whisky, easy sipping and relaxing. Still not my scene, but it does show how it could be appreciated.  At a similar time you find a light chocolate finish come out that similarly benefits the whole experience.

So, not very good near, able to able appreciated if not my scene with water. This Glen doesn’t quite hit the spot for me.

Background: Drunk at the Garricks Head which has a nice selection of whiskys to choose from.  Glen Grant I’ve only encountered before in an aged independent bottling so wasn’t quite sure what to expect. This was drunk during a day off, where I was roaming the city for new things to sample. So as you can imagine I was quite chipper as I reviewed it.

Tasting Notes: Monkey Shoulder

Monkey Shoulder (Batch 27) (Scottish Blended Malt: 40% ABV)

Visual: Apricot amber.

Viscosity: Quite fast thick trails.

Nose: Vanilla. Pencil shavings and toffee. Smooth. Dried apricot. Banana.

Body: Very sweet. Vanilla cream and custard. Apricot. Toffee. Bourbon like notes. A peach front. Very syrupy, like overripe fruit – especially bananas.

Finish: Apricot and oak. Lightly liquorice. Bailies. Dried banana. Ice cream syrups.

Conclusion: Hmm. I’ve had this whisky a few times before and while I found it ok it always seemed too smooth for my tastes. A kind of smooth that didn’t let the flavour grip, rather than the kind that lets it roam if that makes sense.  So I revisited it here expecting a somewhat bland if relaxing whisky.

However I must admit I did find it a bit more open that my memories had suggested. More fruity for one, with dried banana flavour adding to the previously present apricot.  It still comes in a bit oversweet but the smoothness seemed less of a flaw with the new flavours within it.

It definitely aims for the easy drinking of blended whisky, but steps up with the less fiery nature that using all malt allows them.  Obviously this makes for an approachable whisky, and a nice entry point for people looking at the malt market. Despite this, for me, it still never quiet gets my attention as a top class whisky. It is ok, but attempting so much to be approachable that it comes across as a bit too sweet and sickly in a crowd pleasing way. Kinda like Pepsi in the taste tests, the sweetness makes it instantly interesting but doesn’t play as well when you have a full measure.

So still far better than I remember in complexity, and a nice bit of fun, but the additional elements still don’t make it a high rated whisky with me. I think it does its intended job as an introduction malt, but I’m too tied to my love of rough edges and oddities to quite dig it.

Background: Why did they decide blended malt was a good name for this kind of whisky? It creates far too much confusion with blended whisky.  For those wondering, blended whisky is a mix of whisky from different distilleries that may have grain whisky in it. blended malt (or vatted malt as I prefer despite the official naming convention to the contrary) is the mix of whisky from different distilleries but no grain whisky is used. Single malt, as we all know, is a mix of whisky from within a single distillery. Single cask is the whisky from a single cask from a single distillery. Easy. Blended malt seems to aim to smooth out some of the oddities of the individual malts but without introducing the oft disliked grain elements. Me, I’m a single malt man myself – the oddities are what make it for me, but I have tried enough good blended malts and even blended whiskies to know that you can’t write them off just because most of the mainstream entries suck.  Monkey Shoulder seems to have its eye towards cocktails on the promotional stakes, though my main memory of them is from my friend Mike setting up residence on their poker table at a whisky show and promptly whupping ass while I ferried whisky to him.  Pity it wasn’t for money really. A quick bit of web searching suggest that the malt for this is taken from the Kininvie, Balvenie and Glenfiddich distilleries, but I wouldn’t recommend using me as a primary source on that.

Tasting Notes: Van Winkle: Special Reserve: 12 Year: Lot B

Van Winkle: Special Reserve: 12 Year: Lot B (American Wheated Bourbon: 12 Years: 45.2% ABV)

Visual: A very dark amber gold.

Viscosity: Comes down thick and as a single sheet.

Nose: Rye bread. Spice. Shelled husks. Faint oil air. Orange peel. Water lightens mainly without adding much.

Body: Very sweet and spiced. Orange liquor. Sherry soaked red grapes. Treacle. Muscat grapes. Chives. Rye bread.

Finish: Red grapes. Mulled spice. A scented candle like oddity that hands around just at the back of the nostrils. Quite dry. Treacle and herbal.

Conclusion: Not for the faint of heart this one. Before drinking it I thought I had worked out the rough range of flavour the Bourbon played with. Then this passed my lips and I realized I was wrong.

Very sweet with this almost liquore touches countered by very herbal mulled wine styling. The more traditional Bourbon flavours expected show them underneath that, but on top it is all dancing spicy flavour.

Unfortunately you acclimatise to this shock too quickly. It is such a pleasant experience that I would like to be surprised anew on each sip, but the eye blinking oddity loses its punch as you get used to it.  That doesn’t mean it becomes bad, just that you can only really have that surprise once.

Also, don’t add water, it doesn’t seem to benefit and water  kills some of the higher elements in it.

So it had wondrous first sips and  then a tingling spiciness that makes for fair decent flavour by itself. Reminds me a bit of Muscat cask ageing and that’s a fair impressive feat.  Overall very impressive without compromising the core elements. I will definitely have to try the even older versions.

Background: Made at the Buffalo Trace distillery, this is apparently a wheated Bourbon. Best I know that means that despite it containing elements that I was convinced was rye bread like, there was actually no rye used to make it. Go figure.  Drunk at the Rummer Hotel. I have been having a lot of Scottish whisky recently and decided to give their Bourbon selection a try for a change. No I don’t know what “Lot B” is.  Twelve years is bloody old for a Bourbon, I didn’t think they survived well aged for more than six. Obviously I was wrong