New Study "Proves" You Can't Taste The Difference Between Single Malts And Blends. Or Does It?

It is a classic truism in the malt whisky world that single malts are "better than" blends.  The usual reason given is that single malts are free of the "inferior" grain whisky.  It's been popular in the whisky blogosphere to debunk this conclusion, usually by pointing to certain high-end blends and grain whiskies which are so good they stand up to any spirit.  The point is valid: high-end grain and blended whisky can be as good as all but the most incredible single malts.  However, the reputation of single malts as a category remains, and for good reason.  Single malts have an extraordinarily wide gamut of flavors: from 'honey and heather', to 'richly sherried', to 'powerfully peated' and all sorts of distinctive flavors in between.  Alternately sweet, or dry, or phenolic, grassy, smoky, floral, shy or huge, malt is a chameleon which is a terrific carrier for flavor factors such as malting method, wood management, and terroir.  For many single malt enthusiasts, this wide gamut is the exactly the point.  Where bourbon, rye, rum, and brandy can often win out on richness and intensity of their distinctive flavor signature, no spirit can hold a candle to malt for such kaleidoscopic variety.

Could you tell single malts from blends if you were tasting blind samples?  Experience has taught me that it can be devilishly hard to identify what you're drinking when you aren't told anything up front.  (I did a double blind tasting of American and Canadian rye whiskies and failed to tell which was which.  Then, there was the time that I mistook a rye for a Bourbon (see sample #1 in a Smoky Beast blind tasting).  And, one time I actually won Dramming.com's first blind tasting competition - and I didn't get a single identification right, just attributes like ages and proofs.)  Still - single malts and blends and single grains whiskies.  You should be able to tell them apart, right?

Jennifer Lucille Wren (left) and Emily Ross-Johnson (right) at one of the USA tasting sessions involved in the research.

Recently a piece of formal academic research came out which takes on this question and hopes to settle it empirically.  The paper is called "The perceptual categorisation of blended and single malt Scotch whiskies" by Barry Smith et.al and it was published in a journal called "Flavor", put out by Biomed Central (sadly Flavor is due to cease publication after the next issue) - (DOI: 10.1186/s13411-017-0056-x).
http://flavourjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13411-017-0056-x

The paper notes that "a firm distinction exists in the minds of consumers and in the marketing of Scotch between single malts and blended whiskies" but asks "But does this category distinction correspond to a perceptual difference detectable by whisky drinkers?"  In order to tell, expert and non-expert tasters in three different countries (UK, France, and the USA) were asked to apply standardized descriptors to the nose and palates to the following whiskies tasted blind

Four single malts Scotches:

1. Cardhu 12 
2. Mortlach (Flora & Fauna 16 yo)
3. Glenlivet 18
4. Glenmorangie (10 - although erroneously stated as 12)

Four blended Scotches:

1. Chivas Gold 18
2. Ballantine's 17
3. Johnnie Walker Black 12
4. Johnnie Walker Platinum 18

and one grain whisky:

1. Cameron Brig (6 years old) 

The standardized descriptors allowed the researchers to compare results across 92 different tasters in the three different countries and to chart the results.  Here are the charts for the results of nosing these whiskies by experts (top chart) and non-experts (bottom chart) for example.  Single malts are in blue, blends are in black, and the lone grain is in red.  Single malts and blends are all mixed up - although I notice that the experts and the non-experts put a number of the whiskies in the same general areas (although not the grain - which veers drunkenly).

I had the pleasure of sitting on one of the tasting panels, along with some very distinguished members of the New York whisky community at that time (September 2014), including Matt Lurin, the man behind what is probably the best whisky event on the planet at the moment, The Water of Life (more on this blog about that event very shortly - meanwhile click the link to buy tickets), Emily Ross-Johnson who, at the time, was the founder of the Astoria Whiskey Society (now she is the founder of the Portland Whiskey Society - and you should join if you're out there - click the live link), Jennifer Lucille Wren, a whisky blogger and event organizer then, who is now the West Coast brand ambassador for Glenfiddich, and Susanna Skiver Barton, whisky blogger, journalist, and now manager of the Whisky Advocate's web presence.  The experience of participating in the tasting gives me a personal perspective on how this study operated because I was there.

Lead author, Barry Smith, explains the tasting procedure to Matt Lurin (left) and Jennifer Wren (right)

Susanna Skiver Barton (left) and Josh Feldman (the author of this post) at one of Smith et al.'s NY tastings.  The blind samples in the study are before us.  Photo by Emily Ross-Johnson (thanks)

Smith et. al.'s conclusion is that people can't taste the difference between single malts and blends:

"The present study shows that the distinction between blends and single malts, which is central to the production, presentation and marketing of Scotch whisky, does not correspond to a clear cut perceptual distinction for tasters."

Barry Smith and his colleagues have structured an empirical blind study with a good methodology - so have they settled this topic?  In my opinion, absolutely not.  The problem has to do with the types of single malts and blends they selected for the study.  All of the single malts selected - with the sole exception of Mortloch, fall squarely in the "honey and heather" flavor profile, and that's exactly true of the blends selected too.  This isn't representative of those overall segments.  When you walk into a liquor store and peruse the blended Scotch, many of the options are considerably lighter and less distinguished than Johnnie Walker Platinum 18, Chivas Gold 18, or Ballantine's 17 - or even Johnnie Walker Black 12.  The likes of J&B, Johnnie Walker Red, Passport, 100 Pipers, Bell's, Clan McGreggor, Dewar's White Label etc... are far more grainy and less honeyed and floral than the unabashedly high-end blends in the study.  Conversely, many single malt enthusiasts will often opt for single malts well outside the "home plate" honey and heather flavor profile - going for sherry bombs like Glendronach, Aberlour, or Macallan, or peat monsters like Laphroaig, Ardbeg or Lagavulin, or dozens of different interesting variants (the rubber of Ledaig, the pheolic Strathspey, the salt and honey of Old Pultney, Springbank's fungal notes... etc...) rather than the gentle likes of Cardhu, Glenlivet, and the base Glenmorangie.  These single malts, delicious as they are, tend to be close to the center of the "honey and heather" "Highland" flavor profile that is exactly what the blenders at Diageo and Pernod Ricard are aiming for.

To some extent, there is no way to structure a piece of scientific research which adequately captures this broad flavor gamut - precisely because it would be so easy to pick them out blind which would muddy the central question of whether something specific about single malts versus blends is objectively detectable.  It's clear that the designers of this study selected whiskies for the blind tasting deliberately to have a very similar flavor profile with the specific aim of trying to see if tasters could identify the sole distinction with flavor signature held constant as much as possible.  And, in that aim they have succeeded.  I couldn't tell the difference.  The preponderance of the other tasters couldn't either.  And I bet you couldn't reliably tell the difference blind with this set of drams either.  But, I argue that these selections don't represent the nature of blended Scotch whiskies and single malt whiskies generally.  Looking at the segments as a whole, you and I would be far more likely to be able to pick out blends versus single malts when the full gamut of flavors is in the mix.  Select J&B and Bells as the examples of blends, and Laphroaig 10 and Glendronach 15 as the single malts, for example, and then taste those blind.  I bet I could pick the single malts and blends in that example that every time and you probably could too.  It's those real perceptual differences that gave rise to the generalizations that aren't always true - but are true often enough to make them commonly held - which is why whisky bloggers are still writing pieces about how good blends can make you question those assumptions.

So where does that leave us?  Is there some Platonic ideal of "single maltness" which can be differentiated from "blendness"?  No.  Barry Smith et. al. have scientifically proved that, when flavor signature is held relatively constant, tasters cannot distinguish between single malts and blends.  My complaint is that they left that qualifying clause out of the language of their published conclusion, and I find that omission misleading.  It implies, to someone not carefully reading, that all this whisky epicureanism is some kind of snobby mirage and that no one can really taste the difference between the carefully crafted and inexpensive bulk stuff.  That isn't the case at all - and it's not what Barry Smith et. al. meant to imply either.  But they left the door wide open to that misinterpretation.  In social media where many people will only read the headline, that incorrect message will be the one that people will learn most from this study.  In the real world, you can actually taste the difference between many many single malts and many many blends all day long.

Smoky Beast's barrel of Smooth Ambler Single Barrel Rye Shoots The Moon.

There has been a lot of excitement lately about a pretty special private barrel pick of Smooth Amber Old Scout Rye selected by Steve Zeller aka the "Smoky Beast".  Smooth Ambler's Old Scout Single Barrel Rye is typically 7 years old, cask strength, and very good; John Little's nice cherry picks of MGP/LDI's rye barrels.  There was some consternation recently when Smooth Ambler announced that the Single Barrel rye expression were going to disappear off the standard line-up and become a gift-shop exclusive.  That sad news implied that the honey barrels of mature rye in MGP/LDI's rickhouses were becoming scarce.  Hardly surprising:  part of the drum beat of scarcity afflicting high-end American whiskey all over the place these days.  
My connection with the story began in the dimming days of last autumn, October 17th, 2014 when Steve Zeller,  messaged me:

Steven Zeller:  i need your help on an urgent whiskey related matter

Joshua Gershon Feldman:  What's up?

Steven Zeller:  you wouldn't be free to come up to our place for a few minutes after work today would you?  Blind tasting, american. will be the most consequential tasting of my young whiskey career. don't want to spoil it any more than that

Joshua Gershon Feldman:  ...dum dum dum DOHM!

I had been to blind tastings at Steve's before.  Some had involved some of the finest Bourbons possible.  One involved the peatiest whiskies on the planet.  (Finale post of that blind here).

I had no idea what I was going to be tasting - other than it was American.  But Steve was excited and that made me excited.  I was assuming very high end Bourbon.  When I arrived, I was facing this:

The blind flight of 5 with the blank tasting notes.

My job was to rank them.  I did so by writing out tasting notes and then numbering them in order of preference from #1 to #5.  I'll list my blind tasting notes (faithfully transcribed) below the reveal listed immediate below each note: 

1. Color: Amber
Nose: buttery nose (ND OC, IWH). Nougat wax vanilla w/touch of bitter herbal (rot).  Palate: Honey, juicyfruit, yellow florals, light citrus. 100 proof BiB. High corn Bourbon. #5 Reveal:  Michter's 10 yo Rye (2014)  I thought that this was a dusty high-corn Bourbon like Old Charter 7 or IW Harper.  I was completely wrong: it was a rye.  I ranked this one last.  Michter's Rye 10 experienced a big change in 2014 compared to previous years, going from a dark and very mature tasting rye to a much lighter profile, presumably because it stopped being old rye purchased on the bulk market when their contract distillate began hitting 10 years old.  Their contract distillate is apparently Brown-Forman (dsp-ky-354) - thus the same stuff as Rittenhouse Rye from a few years ago - but aged 10 years.  The comedy is that not only did I not recognize this as rye at all, but that I thought it was a low rye Bourbon mash bill!  The perils of tasting blind...

2. Color: Dark Amber red.  Nose: Rancio, herbs, big (high proof) dark KY tobacco peach compote bark. Lush  Palate: Huge lush honeyed herbal malty ivy, licorice (black) caramel cilantro rancio High proof (=- 57% (old Medley Rye). Intense. Bold. Long finish – honey herbal. #1 Reveal:  Smooth Ambler Single Barrel Rye - Barrel 990 (the winner) Yes, I thought this was an Old Medley rye - like Rathskeller or LeNell's or one of the big old Willett's ryes.  Blind, I thought that was a $1,000+ bottle of American classic rye.

3. Color:  Coppery dark amber. Nose:  oak varnish, herbs.  Palate: Big 55-60% high rye bourbon. Candied orange peel \blonde VA tobacco. Peach/citrus stewed fruit.  Four Roses vibe #3 Reveal:  Smooth Ambler Single Barrel Rye (a different barrel, not selected)

4. Color:  Copper penny.  Nose:  Oak sandalwood nougat, honey, citrus, leather, dust, vegetable oil.  Palate:  50-55% high rye bourbon. Candied citrus, blond VA tobacco, honey, vanilla BT (Buffalo Trace) vibe – ER17. Big bold assertive tobacco spice leather rich rancio bitter.  #2 Reveal:  Thomas H. Handy Rye 2012The biggest shocker for me.  Thomas H. Handy rye is among my favorite ryes; a benchmark for me.  Here I didn't even recognize it as a rye.  To my credit, I recognized the distillery (Buffalo Trace), and that it was from the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection.  But I thought it was probably the most different member of that group possible: the Eagle Rare 17.  Yes, I'm making my humiliation public.  This was the real kicker of the group.  I had ranked my favorite rye SECOND after Zeller's barrel pick.  This was utterly shocking to me.  Friends who have drammed with me recently know that I have been putting some century old Old Hermitage pro-Pro rye up against Handy 2012 in tastings.  I do that because Handy is a benchmark for me.  Such are the perils of tasting blind.

5. Color: Copper.  Nose: Peanut, rancio, honey, light tanned leather, vegetable oil, floral vanilla, sawn oak.  Palate: Vanilla! Honey. Rancio. Ivy herbs. Mint. High rye Bourbon. #4. Reveal: another unselected barrel of Smooth Ambler Single Barrel Rye
When the smoke cleared I had only correctly identified one of them as a rye at all.  I had incorrectly thought the rest were Bourbons.  Pretty humiliating.  But I knew which ones I liked best - and in that I was dead on correct.

The big reveal.

The rest is history.  Steve picked barrel #990, which yielded a whopping 56 bottles.  The massive amount of evaporation suggests storage in a very hot part of the warehouse.  This would explain the massive amount of wood extraction and rich flavors.  Steve generously gave out samples to a selection of very interesting people who showed pictures of their hoards.  Steve picked the most outrageous ones, figuring they must have a story.  Their notes have appeared on his blog all week.  They are good reading.  Steve's voice, in particular, is often laugh out loud funny.  
http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-angel-barrel-part-1.html http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2015/07/angelbarrel2.html http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2015/07/angelbarrel3.html http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-angel-barrel-part-4-guest-review.html and my favorite: http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-angel-barrel-part-5-guest-review-by.html



I recently had another sip.  Here are my official (sighted) tasting notes and score:

Smooth Ambler Old Scout Rye Single Barrel - Smoky Beast Barrel #1 - 8yo 64.1% abv.

Look at that color...

Color: dark reddish amber - a stunning color.

Nose:  Big, forward, dark and rich loaded with swirling kaleidoscope of aromas:  honey, sap, citrus, sandalwood, blond tobacco, balsamic, ivy, licorice, aloe, flax oil, vanilla, char, and oak.
Palate:  Richly sweet and powerful on opening with dark cooked honey, raisin, and citrus compote, then vanilla, the sap of herbs cut vegetation.  The expansion is all about black licorice root - woody, herbal, sweet, and richly "black".  The expansion also adds some delicious cognac-like rancio (a rich nutty flavor of noble rot usually associated with madeira, sherry, and Cognac).  Then, as the mid-palate begins to turn towards the finish, a big dose of acid - like balsamic vinegar or pickle juice which turns to char, and then sweet oak.  The finish goes on and on with plenty of char, herbal bitters, more black licorice and all manner of darkness.

Adding a drop of water - automatic at this big proof amplifies the sweetness and thickens the mouth feel.  This stuff feels big, bitter, dark, rich, and old.  A magic trick of faux maturity from an amazing honey barrel.

*****  93

Bottom line: the best rye I've ever tasted out of MGP/LDI and probably the best 21st century rye yet.  This particular honey barrel, which tastes so rich are dark and mature at only 8 years old, is one of those astounding examples which make you question what you know about maturation.  If a rye can be this good at 8 years old, maybe there's a way to repeat it?  I hope so.  But I'm not holding my breath.  Congrats, Steve (and also Anthony Colasacco of Pour, Mt. Kisco who went in on the barrel with Steve).

Full disclosure:  the blind tasting and follow up tasting was from pours provided by Steve - as a host in his home.  I do own a single bottle of this whiskey - which I purchased.  I would have owned more if I had been allowed to purchase more.

Steve Zeller is a happy man with this honey barrel.

Blind tasting notes.  Read it and weep.

Reuven Weinstein's Warm House... And The Killer Blind.

Hanging out on the Internet Bourbon forums you meet and befriend a lot of interesting people.  I love meeting these people in real life.  I've met Reuven Weinstein - a master dusty hunter out of New York - a number of times, but recently I had the great pleasure of spending the whole afternoon with him and his lovely wife Ilana (who was his public face of Facebook for a long time) at his home in Rockaway Park / Belle Harbor.   Ostensibly a house warming - the house has a real story of destruction and rebuilding.  The Weinsteins just recently moved into it.  There was a ton of delicious home made salads, hot wings, and world class smoked BBQ brisket.  Just delicious.  And there was also whiskey - lots of it.  The very best stuff.  Because Reuven is a master whiskey hunter.  The pictures and tasting notes below speak for themselves - but they aren't the reason for the post.  Not at all - but that will come later.

FYI - a different take on this smorgasbord was written up by my friend (and partner in crime) Steven Zeller, The Smoky Beast here:
http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2014/07/rock-rock-rockaway-beach-tasting.html

Reuven is well known in the American whiskey world.  He is a prodigy - a talent at entering neighborhoods that others wouldn't bother with and somehow coming out with a trunk full of absolute treasures from the liquor stores there.  As Reuven toured us through a small portion of the fabulous whiskies he has collected I was amazed time and again by both the fabulous range - from dusty bourbons and the rarest issues to fabulous single malt - with a focus on spectacular and hard to find silent distilleries - and also by our hosts tremendous generosity.  What we tasted that day is not to be forgotten.  And it was but a peek into his fantastic collection.  Which only underscores a curious and oft remarked on fact: Reuven doesn't drink whiskey.  Nope.  He enjoys nosing it.  He produced a 1984 vintage single cask Yamazaki which he particularly enjoyed nosing.  I must concur - it had the most remarkable nose:  a complex and evolving aroma that started with dark cocoa with a hint of anthracite coal combustion (just a hint) and then moving into rich fig pudding baking in rum, and then on to a rich earthiness made farmy by a bit of animal skins.  I could nose that thing all day too.  But ultimately I want to take a sip.  I suspect Reuven will too, someday soon.  I can see the curiosity burning in him.  Meanwhile, his personal code and clean habits keeps him holding back. After Reuven and Ilana served a killer spread of sweet smoky BBQ brisket and lovely home-made sauced hot wings, with homemade slaw, potato salad, green salad and all the fixings,  I made the fatal error of pouring an award-winning Cotswald village Sloe Gin as an after dinner apertif.  Wrong stuff for that crowd!
But, before that happened a lot of whisky got tasted

When I encountered the spread of whiskey on the table my eyes lit on two things right away.  One The Parker Heritage 27 year old legendary PHC2 which I had never tried before.  And right next to it was a 1980s vintage octagonal Wild Turkey 8 year old age statement 1.75 Liter handle.  NOW WE'RE TALKING!  Parker Heritage 2nd edition 27 year old is a legendary statement product from Heaven Hill.  2008 Malt Advocate Magazine's American Whiskey of the Year.  I had tried and enjoyed a Wild Turkey 101 8 yo octagonal handle from the early 90s with Mike Jasinski a little while back.   Lately I've been going deeper with Wild Turkey, and there's a strong argument for the 8 year old WT101 of the 70s-90s as being one my favorite primary expression (i.e. not barrel proof) bourbons.

Parker Heritage 27 48%

Color:  Dark amber
Nose:  Rich rancio malt, sweet sherry nutty rancio, mead honey, deep iterated bourbon vanilla pods: sweetness.  Then tempered by buttery notes and oak incense.
Palate:  Sweet honey malt opening. Waxing into acetone-citrus with ripe cantaloupe, salted caramel with tannin spiciness on the finish.
Light texture on the mouth feel but big spicy finish.  This stuff is a lot like really old cognac with its darkly vinously sugared and oake loaded luxury.  Among the darkest, richest, most indulgent Bourbons I've ever tasted.  A really memorable pour (tasted both at the event and with a 1oz sample tasted at time of writing).

*****

Wild Turkey 101 8 1987 - Octagonal handle 50.5%

This is excellent Bourbon that I've been tasting in a number of contexts.  Here, it's a clear object lesson in the dangers of drinking something you really like immediately after an epic, world class whiskey.  Let's just say, the right time to enjoy a WT101 8yo age statement dusty is NOT immediately after tasting PHC2 27 yo.  Sweet and spicy as decently complex as WT101 was back in the day, it can't hold a candle to the glory cask selected wonder of that PCH2.  It's an unfair juxtaposition.

Color: medium coppery amber
Sweet and comparatively gentle stuff.   Nose:  warm and malty with herbal wafts and a oak sandalwood essence undercurrent.
Palate:  malty juicyfruit opening with both magic marker and candy dish notes.  The mid palate expands into brown sugar, herbal rye spice, warm honey, and sweet alfalfa turning into rye herbal spiciness and then a gentle oak tannin grip with a moderately long finish. Decent density in the mouth.  A perennial favorite, but completely shown the door in that head to head.

****

Lombard Jewels of Scotland Brora 22 50%

Distilled 1982, Bottled 2004, 22 years old.

Color: Gold
Nose:  Heather, honey, waxy
Palate:  Intense honey, turkish delight (powdered sugar, fruity, nutty)., paraffin, heather florals, meadow grass.  Not peaty or farmy.  Lightly tannin spicy finish is the only hint of age.  A heathery honey highland beauty.  With the waxy floral notes this came off like a Clynelish.  Light and beautiful - but oddly not complex considering it's age and method of manufacture.   I could sip and enjoy this one all day.  A true "session Scotch".  This bottling is all about the sunny, floral, honeyed beautiful side of Brora.  Missing is the earthy farmy animal manure aspects, the peat, smoke, and darkness you often see with that distillery.  I greatly enjoyed it.

****
(borderline *****)

Highland Park 25 48.1% abv.

Color: light medium amber with coppery glints.

Nose: Heathery wild meadow florals open up for rich malty rancio riding on dusky animal farmy warmth and some underlying peat and sea coast.  Fig cake and old sherry and leather notes play in the middle where the rancio lives.  As it opens, safflower oil and then marigold yellow florals join the heather, sherry, coastal light peat aroma show.

Palate: Sweet and rich on opening with black raisins, stewed black figs and malt sugars tempered by a whiff of brine.  The expansion brings vinous dark sherry notes of purple fruits and leather and tobacco.  It waxes into rich dark oak a satisfying warmth of gentle well integrated coastal peat and tails into a long, sweet, spicy finish with wood and smoke wrapped around the herbal tail of the malt and the lingering sweet of sherry rancio.  This is a full bore beauty of significant complexity and fills your mouth with a tour of the wide gamut of Scotch Whisky flavors - all of them.  Floral, honeyed, sherried, peated, and coastal all combine to make this beautiful spirit.  Like the 12 and the 18 - but with the darkness and intensity cranked up with maturity.  What a beauty.  Impressively, this stood up to the competition on the table with aplomb.

*****

Hirsch Single Cask Canadian 12 53.1%

The rear label only says Candian Whiskey * Single Cask * 12 years old * Lot 98-1 Bottled by Hirsch Distilleries Lawrenceburg, KY for Priess Imports, Ramona CA and bears a sticker in Japanese for sale in the Japanese market.  Rare and interesting as the odd-man-out bottling in the brief but now legendary association of Julian Van Winkle III's bottling operation with Priess Imports which had taken over the A.H. Hirsch lot of 1974 Bourbon from Michters and had started picking up odd lots and bottling those without the "A.H.".

Steve Zeller toasts w PHC2. Anthony Colasacco, right.

Color: light gold.
Nose: honey, herbal cedar with pencil shavings and mineral flint.
Palate, sweet and lean and honey-floral on entry.  Light and clean on the expansion where herbal spice, light clean mineral, and  a bit of grapefruit fruit and also pith astringency take over.  It tastes like a good Canadian blend of a corn base and rye flavoring whiskey.  I wonder what it actually is and which of Canada's distilleries it came from.  My guess would be Alberta distillery.  It has some of those Alberta Premium whiskey flavors.  Very refined for what it is.  Nicely balanced.

****

This somewhat legendary odd-ball bottling was a housewarming gift of Anthony Colosacco who is best known for his utterly fantastic whiskey bar in Mt, Kisco:  Pour Mt. Kisco.  It's the kind of bar where you can get a flight of Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve - or all 3 Rittenhouse 21, 23, and 25.
http://www.pourmtkisco.com/


Pappy was well represented on the table with a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve 15 from 2006 and also a 2006 or prior (pre-laser stamped) bottle of Van Winkle 12 Lot B that Ari Susskind had been involved in locating.  Great guys and a great whiskey.  Soft and gentle Stitzel-Weller wheater flavors: mellow cherry root beer sandalwood incensed oaky loveliness.

Ari Susskind (left) Reuven Weinstein (right)

As the party was winding down, our host brought out nicely full glencairns with a mystery blind.  The aroma and flavor were clearly in the lightly sherried highland Scottish malt category.  Steve and I bothed initially guessed a  Macallan dusty.  I had to pull a chair aside and really focus.  My quick notes read:

Color:  amber
Nose, floral incense, hard candy, fig cake, sherry, leather

Palate. Intense (50+% abv) Honeyed, minted fig melon candy black plum with some apple skin waxes into big oak and spicy heat.  Hint of clean highland peat or just big oak tannins.  Maybe some active Spanish or French oak going on?  Inchgower?

That intense perfumed floral candy aspect of front, combined with a some of that unripe apple tartness put me in the mind of Inchgower - but also An Cnoc, Balblair, and Tomatin.  Yet this particular whisky clearly wasn't any of those.  I was purely stumped.  Later that evening Reuven texted the reveal:  It was

Convalmore 36 - 1977 Diageo office 2013 realease 58% abv.

(notes above) *****
A retail listing of this whisky at TWE (where the picture is linked from):
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-22036.aspx

Convalmore is one of the legendary silent stills of Scotland, founded in 1893 and closed in the glut days of 1985.  The story is well told on Malt Madness:
http://www.maltmadness.com/whisky/convalmore.html

When I got home I had to put it up against  this 10 cl sample of Connoisseur's Choice Convalmore 17 40% Gordon & MacPhail 1981-1998 (bottled by Van Der Boog, Holland - and brought to a recent tasting by my friend Bram Hoogendijk - thanks Bram!)

Convalmore 17 40% Gordon & MacPhail Connoisseur's Choice 1981-1998

Color: Gold

Nose:  Honey and floral heather with a hint of white white tartness, chalk mineral, and yellow grass in the Sun.

Palate: Sweet and gently honeyed on the opening with an immediate tart crisp apple skin quality.  Floral and tart fruit on the expansion with a dry perfume aspect on top of a rich barley-malt chassis.  The turn is all perfume and young sawn dried oak planks.  Beautiful - and very much in the Inchgower/AnCnoc wheelhouse - yet totally unique.  (Serge Valentin noted a touch of peat on the way to giving it a 76).

****

An amazing opportunity to taste a rare and special bottling of the rare Convalmore distillate in its very mature state.  In conversations on-line I speculated about the spicy heat on the back end of the 36 year old 1977 Diageo bottling.  Was it peat or spicy oak?  Rubin Luyten of Whiskynotes.be thought it might be a bit of peat (his excellent review is here):

http://www.whiskynotes.be/2014/convalmore/convalmore-36-years-1977-2013/

Angus MacRaild (Angus MacWhisky) - expert on ancient Scotch par excellence e.g.:
http://www.whisky-online.com/blog/ - thought it was the wood:

" I'd say it is most likely from the wood given that it's a mix of european and american oak aged for over 36 years. At that sort of age you can definitely get a certain amount of phenolic extraction from the wood which can come through as medicinal/spicy/smoky/menthol in varying degrees. I doubt that Convalmore had any regular or meaningful peating level during the mid-late 70s. The ones I've tried from that time reveal it to have a spicy/herbaceous quality which I feel is very much part of the house style and derives more from the distillate. Anyway, I'm very much in agreement about the 36yo, it's an absolutely stonking dram!"

Stonking dram indeed.  I can't believe it was just handed out as a blind tasting as the post dessert apertif.  That's class.  Thanks, Reuven, for a wonderful time and a fabulous education!

A Large Scale Tasting Of Dusty Old Weller Antiques 1998-2008 Tasted Blind & Compared With The Current Stuff.

11 Years of Old Weller Antique from 1998 (left) to 2008 (right).

The invitation came a couple of months ago.  Mike Jasinski - master dusty hunter and a great lover of old bourbons - had assembled a flight of Old Weller Antique paper labels bottles from 1998 to 2008: a full 11 years that chart the brands movement from Stitzel-Weller to Buffalo Trace.  These dusty bottles have become extremely popular these days and hard to find.  In the past few years the 7 year old age statement was dropped and the bottle design was changed from a stock cylinder with an antique looking paper label to a rounded ball shaped bottle with the ink printed right on the bottle (pictures of the current bottle are at the bottom).   Mike wanted a group of whiskey people to come out and taste them all blind - reporting our findings with numerical scores on the 100 point scale.  

We, however, tasted them blind - self poured from these flasks marked only by a number.

1940 BIB
(photo from Bonham's)

The brand, "Old Weller" harkens back to Pappy Van Winkle's original employer, William LaRue Weller who started his famous whiskey company in Louisville, KY in 1849.  The legendary inventor of the wheated whiskey mash bill (where wheat is used instead of rye as the flavoring grain, above a corn base and bit of malt to add enzymes).  Stitzel-Weller sold the wheated mash bill in a number of expressions, notably Rebel Yell, Cabin Still, and Old Fitzgerald.  Sam Cecil (in The Evolution of Kentucky Whiskey) reports that "Old W.L. Weller" (along with Mammoth Cave and Cabin Still) were brands that Pappy Van Winkle bottled after W. L. Weller's death in 1899 and before partnering with A. Ph. Stitzel during Prohibition using whiskey sourced from the Stitzel Bros.distillery in Louisville and the Old Joe distillery in Anderson.  Looking over old auction records I see the Old W. L Weller Special Reserve expression at 100 proof (as a Bottled In Bond expression) in the Repeal era (see photo at left taken from the October 2013 Bonham's NY Whiskey sale).  The "Old Weller" brand name doesn't seem to appear until the gold veined paper label incarnation apparently born in the early 1970s.  The earliest ad I could find showing it is from 1979 (below):

Ad from 1979 talks about the gold veining.
The word "Antique", however, is absent.

Chuck Cowdery lauds Old Weller Antique as a great value at $16 for a 7 year old in the back of his essential book Straight Bourbon (highly recommended) without reference to the brand's history. Sally Van Winkle Campbell doesn't mention the "Old W.L. Weller" or "Old Weller Antique" brands by name in "But Always Fine Bourbon".  Although she relates a story that "the reason that the distillery came out with 107 proof was because Pap's doctor said he could only have two drinks a day!"  If that's true then the Old Weller Antique expression dates to the mid-1960s (Pappy died in 1966), which jibes pretty well with the fact that I can't find a bottle or mention until 1970 or so.
(Update.  John Lipman (of http://www.ellenjaye.com/) has a much better explanation.  I posted it here:)
http://www.cooperedtot.com/2014/07/john-lipman-explains-why-there-is-107.html

That said, the expression existed through some very solid glory years of Stitzel-Weller (S-W) and then through a transition to production at Ancient Age / Buffalo Trace.  Experience tasting the Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve bottlings from 2009-2013 have shown me that Buffalo Trace has a good handle on the Stitzel-Weller wheated mash bill flavor component.  The first in the series we'd be tasting at Mike's house would be a 1998 Stitzel-Weller Old Weller Antique (abbreviated "OWA" henceforth) - labeled "Louisville".  The rest would be labelled "Frankfort" but, presumably there would be a transition period where Stitzel-Weller stocks would still be used until Buffalo Trace's Frankfort stocks took over.  The Old Weller brand was sold by United Distillers to Sazerac in 1999 (which renamed the Frankfort, KY Ancient Age distillery  Buffalo Trace (BT)  in that same year, 1999).

Update: I'm wrong here.  I left out the period of time the Old Weller wheater recipe was made at New Bernheim where United Distillers (later to become Diageo) had consolidated Bourbon production - leading to the closing of Stitzel-Weller.  Thanks, Mike Jasinski, for setting it straight, in the comments on this post.  Also, in the comments below, Mike adds tasting notes: "The noses are dead giveaways as to which bottle is which. 98-01 had the typical green apple SW nose it is very muted but it is there. The 02-05 have they typical cherried sweet nose that Bernheim distilled wheated bourbons have. The 06-08 bottlings are very typical of the BT wet cardboard nose."

Mike (right center) and Claire Doorden,
(left center), welcome guests

Could we pick out the S-W 1998 stuff blind?  Could we taste a clear demarcation to BT?  Because Mike asked everyone to use a 100 point numerical scale I will be using that grading system for these.  Mike could swear he could identify BT by an aroma that I was classifying as "linseed oil" but which Mike called "cardboard".  Once he used that word I couldn't help but use it myself.  Cardboard - like sniffing the inside of a brown cardboard box is a good description of the aroma.  You'll see it mentioned in my nosing notes quite a bit below.  It's not as bad as it sounds. It's earthy and woody and sits among the floral and deep sugar notes.  As you can see by the scores below, all this stuff ranges from very good to excellent.

Josh Camerote pours himself a blind.

Jo

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 1998 Stitzel-Weller.  Blind #4

Color:  medium amber
Nose:  Honeyed, fruity, oily, mossy, flinty.  Hint of tobacco.
Palate:  Sweet, fruity honeyed.  Maple, treacle shoo fly pie.  Cherry, citrus.
My score:  87  Mike's composite score:  87.

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 1999 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #9

Color: dark medium amber
Nose:  honey toffee, cherry, cola, juicyfruit, oil, sandalwood.
Palate:  Intense sweet sandalwood and rancio.  Chewy mouth feel and long sweet oaky finish
My score: 91  Mike's composite Score: 92

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2000 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #1

Color: Dark amber
Nose: maple syrup juicyfruit.  Brown sugar toffee
Palate:  honey, malty toffee.  Cornflower, apricot bark.  Cherry, root beer
My score:  92  Mike's composite score: 92

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2001 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #8

Color:  dark amber (darkest yet)
Nose: Beautiful nose, floral cardboard
Palate: Honey, ripe cantaloupe, Turkish delight. Candy oak perfume
My score: 89  Mike's composite score: 88

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2002 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #2

Color:  dark amber (a shade darker than blind #1).
Nose light dusty musty oaky malt cherry cocoa.  Trace of iodine.
Palate, sweet cherry cola, char, tannin bitterness.
My score: 87  Mike's composite score:  87

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2003 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #11

Color:  dark medium amber
Nose:  Cardboard, malt toffee rancio brown sugar
Palate: Candied, toffeed, sandalwood perfumed glory.
My score: 91  Mike's composite score: 91

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2004 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #6

Color:  dark amber like 3
Nose: floral sandalwood, cherry, cardboard
Palate: Sweet, cherry, toffee, char and oak tannin.  Longer oaky maple finish with a bitter edge.
 My score 86 (bitter finish knocked it down)  Mike's composite score:  87

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2005 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #3

Color: dark amber, shade darker than 2 and 1
Nose: Oily, char. A little meaty
Palate: Fruity.  Tiny bit sour
My score: 88  Mike's Composite score: 88

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2006 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #7

Color: dark medium amber
Nose: Cardboard cherry juicyfruit
Palate:  honey, cherry toffee juicyfruit.  Oak tannin
My score: 88  Mike's composite score: 87

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2007 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #10

Color: almost as dark as 8/3
Nose: Cardboard, dark, sweet toffee, char, a hint of mildew
Palate: Sweet, cherry, cocoa, dark malt, cocoa, root beer.  Fruity, dark brown and delicious.  Char & edge of bitter char on finish.
My score: 90  Mike's composite score: 89

Old Weller Antique 7 yo. 53.5% abv. 2008 Buffalo Trace.  Blind #5

Color: light medium amber
Nose: Linseed nose, honey, yellow flowers
Palate:  honey, treacle, mint notes, honeysuckle,
My score: 88  Mike's composite score 87

Conclusion:  The Stitzel-Weller in the group wasn't the highest rated and it wasn't apparent to me at the time that it was the Stitzel-Weller one.  I like to think I can see some of the tell tale signs in my tasting notes and that if I were really paying attention I might have caught it.  Coulda Woulda Shoulda.  The bottom line is that it's all delicious Bourbon - with some significant variation between a dark and malty rich variety and a lighter amber more floral and fruity variety.  These varieties don't seem to correlate with year at all.  I suspect it's about barrel variation and rickhouse location.  While my 3 top rated ones were all dark and rich, the lighter ones were excellent drinking in their own right.  And notice that the Stitzel-Weller one was one of the lightest ones.

It makes a lot of sense to compare these experiences of tasting an extensive group of dusty Old Weller Antiques against the stuff you can buy today.  It's extremely popular and lauded.  So popular, however, that it has gone on allocation (i.e. a rationed limited supply to distributes).  It can still be readily found - particularly earlier in each month.  It's the same Buffalo Trace stuff, just now without an age statement.  Does that matter?  I tasted the bottle of Old Weller Antique that I have open at the moment (purchased late 2013) the following day at home - in the open (i.e. not blind).  This was a completely different tasting.  But just one day later the flavors of the paper label OWAs were fresh in my mind.

New Old Weller Antique 107 - no age statement.  53.5% abv. Bottle purchased 2013

Color: Medium light amber
Nose:  Vanilla, floral, hints of mint and lilac.  Light linseed oil/cardboard note.
Palate:  Opening is hotter and less malty than any of the examples tasted at Mike's.  It is grassy sweet with corn and apricot-citrus and cherry fruity notes along with some acetone notes.  The mid palate turns to oak and char, but with a more bitter presentation.
My score: 82

Conclusion.  It's still a wonderful Bourbon for the money, but it has lost a measure of depth of flavor, malty richness, and candied intensity.  With youth it has gained floral, herbal, and fruity notes - but the overall balance is thinner and less lush.

Phil Simon checks Mike's treasures

Phil Simon brought treasures
of his own too. 

The after party to this event was epic.  Major events included Phil Simon bringing a bottle of the legendary Hirsch Rye 13.  This epic bottle will be the topic of it's own post soon, but for the moment here are quick tasting notes taken at the event (when my palate was, admittedly, a bit toasted):

Hirsch 13 rye 47.8 % Medley bottled for Priess by Julian Van Winkle

Color: Dark coppery amber
Nose: caramel toffee, soft lanolin, cut daisy, cilantro flower
Palate;  Gentle, effervescent, malty, caramel, brown sugar, rum rancio, herbal, cinnamon.  Complex, rich, and superb.

Mike then opened a Louisville bottling of W. L Weller Centennial
Then people started getting goofy.

Other highlights included Mike's Louisville bottling of W. L. Weller Centennial, the last of his open bottle of 1916-1922 Old Bridgeport Mongahela PA rye (the topic of an upcoming post), the excellent Diageo bottling of Rosebank 21, and an amazing 1940s Old Taylor (that also needs its own post).  What a wonderful evening!  Thanks Mike and Claire!  Looking forward to our next 2am drive to Waffle House!

Canadian Ryes Bottled in the USA Surveyed - Double Blind

Rye whisky has exploded in popularity in recent years with resurgent production in the USA after decades of neglect. Canada, however, has always been known for rye. In the past few years a number of bottlers in the USA have taken Canadian rye whisky, bottled it domestically and sold it, with varying degrees of marketing emphasis, as Canadian rye.

A couple of months back I was reading Davin de Kergommeaux's Canadian Whisky: The Portable Expert and I picked up a bottle of Pendleton 1910 to enjoy while reading. de Kergommeaux writes about Canadian distillers assembling Canadian whiskies from smooth "base whiskies" often made from corn or wheat, and rye "flavoring whiskies". These combinations are referred to as "rye" regardless of the exact percentage of rye grain in the mash bill. In the US a whisky labeled "rye" must contain 51% or more rye. Pendleton 1910 is bottled in Bend Oregon but contains Canadian rye whisky and is labelled thus. I'm not certain of its mash bill, but I really enjoyed it and gave it four stars. In comments on that blog post, talented Oregon whisky and cocktail blogger Jordan Devereaux, creator of the blog Chemistry of the Cocktail, recommended Jefferson's Rye. He said that Jefferson's Rye, while a couple of years younger (still a noble ten years old by age statement) had a higher percentage of alcohol for less money - and was also labelled as a Canadian rye - although bottled in the USA. This is covered in detail in his 2011 Whiskey Review: Jefferson's 10-Year Straight Rye. I put in on my list.

Shortly afterwards I saw The Porch Hound's review, "The Whistlepig Dilemma and Why All Whisky Isn’t Created Equal". It is an impressive survey of four different rye whiskies, two Canadian ryes (both bottled in the USA, again): Whistlepig and Mastersons; and two American ryes: Thomas H. Handy and Old Potrero. I had tried the American ones, but not the Canadian ones. I actually had Whistlepig in my in-pile for months and hadn't realized it was a Canadian rye. I had been under the impression that it was an American craft spirit. Indeed, Whistlepig is an American craft distiller in full operation, but while its juice is aging it has contracted to buy Canadian aged juice and bottle it under its own label. The Canadian rye that Whistlepig had sourced had taken the world by storm with rave reviews. The shocking thing about The Porch Hound's review was that in a blind tasting, they found that Whistlepig wasn't nearly as good in their opinion as another American craft distiller selling a US bottling of Canadian rye - but this time one that no one (certainly not I) had seemingly ever heard of: Mastersons.

This finding was so iconoclastic and exciting that I immediately resolved to replicate this finding. I wasn't the only one. Tim Read of top whisky blog Scotch and Ice Cream reviewed Whistlepig, Masterson's and Jefferson's rye head to head to head just this last week in "Canadian Rye, Three Ways". He found them all lovely (B+s in his rating system) - a near dead heat. In the review he doesn't crown a clear winner but has states that he puts Masterson's slightly ahead.

My goals in performing an overview of Canadian rye whiskies bottled in the US were:
1) I wanted to corroborate The Porch Hound's, findings (i.e. is Masterson's an amazing standout)- or not
2) address the issue of whether they were all from one distillery as Jordan had suggested they might be.
3) Determine whether there was a clear delineation between these Canadian ryes and their closest American kin.

To that end I resolved to replicate The Porch Hound's survey tasting as a blind. Recent experience has taught me that mental expectations can affect flavors to the extreme that even basic details of the mash bill can be mistaken. Furthermore, while I wanted to include The Porch Hound's original selections of Whistlepig, Masterson's, Old Potrero Single Malt Rye, and Thomas H. Handy Rye, I also wanted to make sure I included Jefferson's Rye as per Jordan Devereaux's suggestion and given Tim Read's conclusion that it was so close to the others. I also knew that I had to include the other US bottled Canadian rye I knew of - the one that had started me on this road: Pendleton 1910 Rye. Finally, I wanted a control. In my experience neither Old Potrero nor Thomas H. Handy tasted remotely like a Canadian rye, but Russell's Reserve Rye 6 - the high end rye from the makers of Wild Turkey - had a creamy smoothness that I had come to associate with Canadian ryes. Furthermore I have had quite a bit of experience with it recently. I felt that having Russell's Reserve Rye 6 in the mix would help keep me honest and prevent me from erroneously ascribing elements of the flavor signature of rye whisky in general to Canadian rye in specific. I never doubted for a second, however, that I would be able to pick it out cleanly from the lineup of Canadian ryes. Given the large number of selections here, I chose to separate the Handy and have it separately from the blinds because it has such a dramatically different strength (at full cask strength) and flavor profile I couldn't see it playing meaningfully in a blind. Because I had a bit of glassware shortage due to some other projects I could only muster 5 glencairns. Because I felt Old Potrero had the least to bring the blind in the head to heads I put it in a NEAT glass and separated it from the blinds. Thus the only true blinds in this tasting are Whistlepig, Masterson's, Jefferson's Rye, Pendleton 1910, and Russell's Reserve Rye.

Methodology:

I decided to use a full double blind system because my assistant in this endeavor was to be my 9 year old daughter. Part of the issue was I didn't trust her to make precise and even pours from full heavy bottles. I also wasn't sure she would instinctively be able to randomize the selections knowing what they were. I solved the issue by decanting precise pours myself into a series of sample bottles that were labelled with a sequence of letters from A to E. I wrote a key which mapped the whisky's names to these letters. Then I gave this series of small bottles to my daughter. She blindly and randomly poured them into the matrix of glasses and wrote a second key which mapped the sequence of letters to the sequence of numbers on the mat where the glasses were placed 1-5 (with place 6 reserved for Old Potrero in the NEAT glass - to be tasted along side). Only when I matched the two keys at the end would the identities of the whiskies in the glasses be revealed to both of us.

Tastings:

Here are my tasting notes as written during the blind tasting - followed by the revealed identity:

1. Nose: heavy musky oak, acetone, peach, citrus, old roses. A bourbon-like nose - very nice.

Entry is sweet with honey toffee, treacle and spicy with oak and herbal expansion: ivy and cilantro. A big classic rye flavor profile. The finish is a spice afterglow - herbal and malty.

w/water & extensive air the flavor profile is little changed: big, flavor dense, rich & bourbon-like with stewed peaches & musk, big spicy herbal expansion with ivy, cilantro, and eucalyptus and a big woody oaken finish. This is a big sleek bruiser of a rye. I was definitely thinking it was Whistlepig or possibly Jefferson's based on what I had heard. ****

Reveal: Jefferson's Rye 10 Years Old 47% abv
Batch 3, Bottle 1912

2. Nose: lighter, more floral. Toffee, and apricot bark. Floral notes of of marigold and honeysuckle, daisies and burdock root.

Thinner mouth feel (less proof?) Herbal sweet entry with tons of marigold and herbal ivy orchid lilly flowers. Herbal sweet entry, spicy expansion with ivy herbs and more floral orchid lilly flavors.

w/water and extensive air the nose is more savory (parma ham). Big marigold herbal flavor has become even more dominant on entry which has become off-dry. Lean, elegant, herbal and marigold flavor. Gentle sophisticated oak on finish. I was thinking Masterson's *****

Reveal: Russell's Reserve Rye 6 years old 45% abv.

3. Nose: light dry mineral, sweet plum, dust, lanolin, floral lilly, some spicy oak perfume. Palate: creamy off-dry entry with oak, mineral, and waxy or lanolin coating. Spicy heat and long finish with bitter almond.

w/water and extensive time: chalk mineral, spirit note, sweet solvent note. Entry is sweet, creamy and gently herbal with a spicy expansion at mid palate. The finish is tingling, glowing and waxy with faint herbal bitterness.

I was thinking Russell's Reserve 6. ****

Reveal: Masterson's Rye 10 years old 45% abv.
Batch 3, Bottle 6160

4. Nose: cake batter - noticeably less complex than the others so far. Maple syrup. Distant sandalwood dry oak. With more time some dark baked and almost chemical notes. Entry is sweet and simple with some artificial vanillin and caramel flavors. Cake batter, and fake vanilla. Less oak. Turn to the finish introduces some gentle cherry. Very gentle finish with very little oak influence.

w/extensive air savory (parma ham) nose. Musky sweet toffee and cake batter. Soft expansion with cherry notes in the turn to the finish and malty cherry in the finish. I was thinking (?) this was clearly the loser of the group - although still very nice. ***

Reveal: Pendleton1910 12 years old 40% abv.

5. Nose of floral cognac: very august and nice with marigold and roses floral notes. some old apricot citrus. "Smells like fancy whisky". Light, more acidic, spritely & fresh. Some lovely incense-like oak perfume. The entry is sweet and complex with tons of oak filligree. A spicy expansion - semi-dry with marmalade cognac. Plenty of oak tannins on the finish. Adding 3 drops of water the entry becomes more intensely sweet - with candied orange citrus and a creamy aspect.

With extensive air the nose becomes dust, preserved citrus, and still lightly floral. The entry is sweet with jammy citrus, spicy on the expansion with complex herbal ivy and cilantro notes. More oak on the finish. This was the clear winner overall. I was thinking Whistlepig or Jefferson's. *****

Reveal: Whistlepig Rye 10 years old 50% abv.

6. Nose: intensely herbal with eucalyptus, ivy and a big dose of 50% fermented golden brewed wulong tea (orchid toasted flavors). Maybe some herbal sassafrass. Gently herbal on the sweet entry with bourbon-like candy-corn. Spicy heat on the expansion with mild hops-like bitterness joining ivy, cilantro, and herbal effusion. A gentle finish marked by herbal bitterness. ***

Identity: Old Potrero Single Malt Rye Essay 10-SRW-ARM1 No Age Statement

Chaser: Thomas H. Handy Rye 2011 63.45% abv issue.

Nose candied citrus, musky cherry, and candy apple with cinnamon

Palate: Huge entry - explosive rye flavors much bigger. Bourbon-like stewed peaches cherry compote, crushed ivy and cilantro herbal note, floral vanilla oak, sandalwood incense, hints of cinnamon heat and plenty of oak on the finish.

*****

My full dedicated review of Handy: http://www.cooperedtot.com/2012/06/thomas-h-handy-rye-is-fireworks-display.html

Analysis and Conclusions:

Goal #1) Is Masterson's the clear winner - was I (as Garrett and Jamie had written on The Porch Hound) "surprised to find out that the whisky that kicked everyone in the teeth was the relatively unheralded Masterson’s."?

No. Handy was the clear winner in my opinion. Whistlepig was the clear winner of the Canadian ryes in my opinion - but granted it was very close. Tastes are subjective and these small batch items are subject to batch variation. But today, with my samples, that's how it played out for me.

Goal #2) Are all the Canadian ryes here possibly from the same distillery?

I have put this question directly to various people in various ways, including asking Gavin de Kergommeaux directly. No one seems to know - or is willing to talk. Judging this by palate alone is notoriously tricky. de Kergommeaux repeatedly makes the point that each Canadian distillery produces a range of blends using in-house produced whiskies with often widely divergent flavor profiles. Differences do not prove different distilleries. Also, similarities don't prove production at a single distillery either. Similar production methodologies and mash bills can end up producing very similar tasting products even at totally different distilleries.

Furthermore, I was struck by the fact that, blind, I confused Russell's Reserve Rye 6 for a Canadian whisky and confused Masterson's for a Kentucky product. I can state, however, that Pendleton 1910 tasted dramatically different from all the other ryes in the tasting and that Whistlepig and Jefferson's tasted very similar to each other - although Whistlepig had a more refined presentation. I would not be surprised if Whistlepig and Jefferson's ended up being produced by the same distillery, but I would be surprised if Masterson's was, and even more surprised if Pendleton was.

A word about Pendleton 1910's labeling: Masterson's, Whistlepig, and Jefferson's all specifically state "Straight Rye Whisky" which in the USA means 51% plus rye, no additives, and at least 2 years in the barrel. Pendleton 1910 says something quite different: "100% Canadian Rye Whisky". I get the feeling that Pendleton 1910 doesn't comply with US legal requirements for Straight Rye Whisky - but I have no idea in what way. Given the dramatically different flavor profile I would guess that Pendleton's might be a blended Canadian product. I was rather struck, too, by the fact that I found Pendleton 1910 to be a high 4 star whisky when tasted sighted and by itself and a 3 star whisky when tasted in the presence of a bunch of other Canadian ryes. This points to the power of context and also of blind tasting.  UPDATE:  In conversation Davin DeKergommeaux (Malt Maniac, author, top Canadian whisky blogger and noted Canadian whisky authority) confirms that Pendleton 1910 is made from 100% rye - but crafted in a different way from the others - which accounts for its unique flavor profile.

Goal #3) Determine whether there was a clear delineation between these Canadian ryes and their closest American kin.

Amazingly, the answer here is no. Blind I was not able to clearly determine which ryes were Canadian and which were American. The flavor signature of the straight rye mash bill trumped geographical location.

Final conclusion:

Rye whiskies are delicious. If you aren't familiar with them - try them today. Their herbal flavor is delicious neat, and in classic cocktails such as Old Fashioneds and Manhattans. The influx of Canadian pure ryes into the American market is a welcome advent. Some of these ryes compete favorably with America's best. From a financial perspective, Jefferson's Rye is a stunning bargain. With a bold assertive rye flavor and a clear kinship with the winners it is a standout value at around $30/bottle. Russell's Reserve Rye at around $36/bottle remains a stand out value as well. Masterson's at $50+ is pushing it a bit, in my opinion. Old Potrero also runs around $50+ and is a tougher sell at the price point given the competition. However Old Potrero is an innovative craft distiller that is still actively exploring different production methods, unlike Masterson's which is rebottling an imported product. Old Potrero is a distillery to watch. Whistlepig at $70+ is clearly high - but the quality is wonderful. I have no problem recommending it. Furthermore, I like that the proceeds are helping fund a working distillery that is producing its own distillate. Thomas Handy is an achievement and, while limited and hard to get, remains the top of the rye heap in my opinion and its high price and difficult availability are justified by its power, complexity, and obvious crafting. Pendleton 1910 emerges as a different product. At around $35/bottle it is reasonably priced and very tasty, but doesn't compete well against Jefferson's or Russell's at this price point head to head. Bottom line, all of these ryes are worthwhile in their own ways. There isn't a single one I would feel sad about owning.