Whisky Review: Compass Box Asyla

Asyla was one of Compass Box's first blends, holding down the bottom end of their range. When it was introduced in 2001, a budget blend with a relatively high proportion of malt whisky was still a novelty.

From what I can find, this whisky was composed from 50% Cameronbridge grain whisky, 5% Glen Elgin malt, 23% Teaninich malt, and 22% Linkwood malt (though this may have changed later in its life), then bottled at 40% without coloring or chill filtration.

I purchased this sample from Dramtime.

Compass Box Asyla

Nose: very aromatic, even from a distance - strong dusty floral notes, graham crackers, vague under- and over-ripe fruit, balanced grain and malt, gentle American oak, orange peel. After adding a few drops of water it shifts towards the grain, tamping down some of the other elements.

Taste: fairly strong grain sweetness up front, creamy vanilla and floral/vegetal notes in the middle, then a gentle malty slide into the finish. After dilution it becomes rounder and creamier throughout, though a touch of grainy bitterness emerges at the back.

Finish: alcohol heat, dry grain and malt, pretty vague in general

Overall I think this does what it set out to do - provide an affordable blend that isn't wholly lacking in character. There aren't lots of new facets to be found by concentrating on it, this is a whisky meant to be drunk without bringing a lot of attention to itself.

While Asyla has been discontinued, nominally because of a lack of aged stock necessary for its construction, it's also a little hard for me to see that as a great loss. While they're not identical, Great King Street Artist's Blend accomplishes more or less the same task at a comparable price. They each emphasize slightly different aspects of the general profile, but if you like one it seems unlikely that you'll dislike the other. Additionally, Oak Cross is also still available for only a little bit more, taking the profile and amplifying it by removing the grain whisky component. Either way, I'm not going to mourn the disappearance of Asyla. It served its purpose.

Whisky Review: Isle of Skye 12 Year

Isle of Skye is a product of Ian Macleod, an independent bottler and the owner of both Glengoyne and Tamdhu distilleries. The brand was pretty low-key for decades with old school, rather plain labels on their bottles and prices to match. They relaunched the lineup a few years ago with new labels and older limited editions. Unfortunately that also means that the price has gone up locally, but I've still been itching to try the older version.

This blend is constructed from grain whisky plus Speyside and Island (of course strongly hinted to be Talisker from the name) malts that are married together in casks before bottling at 40%, almost certainly with chill filtration and possibly a little coloring.

Isle of Skye 12 Year

Nose: rather light - sherry, hints of savory peat, mixed nuts, raisins, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water the sherry gets stronger, there is more peat and oak, plus some baking spices come out.

Taste: balanced malt/grain up front, sherry throughout, a little chocolate and oak in the middle, not a lot of development. After dilution it becomes a little brighter, but with less heat, more noticeable peat at the back, and more vanilla.

Finish: sherry-driven, bittersweet, mild oak, hints of peat

Well, that was kind of disappointing. I really enjoyed the 8 Year, which was far more bold. This is smoother, but just doesn't offer anything particularly interesting. I would buy it over a lot of standard 12 year old blends as the peat adds a little something, but it's just not engaging enough to make me want to drink it on the regular. I'd give this a miss in favor of the younger, cheaper version.

Whisky Review: Compass Box Great King Street Glasgow Blend

While I was in Washington D.C. in early November, I dropped by Black Whiskey for dinner and a couple of drinks. Glancing at their back bar I noticed a decent collection of blends that I decided to try.

I've had a few releases from their Great King Street lineup. The Artist's Blend was perfectly decent, but somewhat uninspiring. The one-off New York Blend was far better and a peat-y treat. So I was very interested when the Glasgow Blend was released, which looked to combine the peat of the NY Blend was sherry cask whisky. Unfortunately it is rather expensive locally, so I haven't been able to bring myself to buy it.

The whisky is composed of a mix of 35% grain whisky from Cameronbridge and 65% malt whiskies from a number of distilleries and cask types, the details of which can be found on Compass Box's site. It is bottled at 43% without coloring or chill filtration.

Compass Box Great King Street Glasgow Blend

Nose: strong but not overwhelming Laphroaig smoke, solid underpinning of malt and grain, backdrop of sherry, Speyside floral notes in the background. After adding a few drops of water it becomes a little washed out leaving peat smoke on a smoothly grainy bed, less sherry.

Taste: opens with balanced malt/grain/sherry sweetness, joined by moderate but not tannic oak and caramel in the middle, sherry in the background throughout, rising but not overwhelming peat smoke at the back. After dilution it becomes smoother but maybe too much, a little washed out but more sherry.

Finish: balanced malt/peat/sherry/oak

This is a good whisky, no doubt about it. It's a well-composed blend that uses its grain component as a base while letting the malts do most of the work. I think I missed a bit because I was served this whisky in a tumbler, but the general sense was still very positive. If I can ever find this for under $40 with shipping I will definitely be grabbing a full bottle.

Whisky Review: The Exclusive Blend 1991 21 Year

While primarily known for their single casks, the Creative Whisky Company has been releasing a series of vintage blended whiskies. There have been roughly a half-dozen different expressions ranging from 6 to 40 years old.

This version was constructed from malt and grain whiskies distilled in 1991 aged in refill sherry casks and bottled in 2013 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

The Exclusive Blend 1991 21 Year

Nose: good balance between sherry and malt, pleasant grain, fresh grass and herbal notes, gently floral, a touch of wood spices. After adding a drops of water more vanilla comes out, the sherry largely fades, and the grain and floral components are more prominent.

Taste: sweet grain with a slightly sour edge up front, green apples/pears around the middle, sliding into sherry, dark chocolate, floral notes, and bittersweet oak near the back. After dilution it becomes grainier with most of the sherry fading into the background.

Finish: balanced grain and oak, slightly sour savory note, dried orange peel, floral, fresh grass and herbs, light apple/pear

I have mixed feelings about this blend. There's no question that it's well-constructed and the quality matches or exceeds plenty of other blends and single malts at the same price point. But it also feels like it didn't entirely reach its potential - for being 80% malt, I found that the grain component was still fairly clear, but this may be a stylistic choice. I'm also a little disappointed that it lost so much of the sherry with even a little dilution, which makes me wonder if this would have been better at 50%. If you enjoy older sherry influenced blends I think this is a solid example of the style and can still be purchased from some retailers, but this sample isn't enough to make me want more.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal 18 Year

Chivas 18 Year is the next rung up the ladder from their Extra expression, positioned to compete with the likes of Johnnie Walker Gold. It is claimed that the core component of the blend, much like the 12 Year, is Strathisla, there's really no way to know exactly what is going into it beyond the age.

This whisky was bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal 18 Year

Nose: malt/grain, floral, gentle peat smoke and oak, light sherry influence with savory notes and wood spices. After adding a few drops of water it becomes flatter, with less peat smoke.

Taste: a little flat - grain/malt, gentle oak, light sherry, vanilla, citrus/berry overtones, and a touch of peat with oak tannins at the back. After dilution it becomes even flatter - mostly grain with a little vanilla and a touch of sherry at the back.

Finish: oak tannins, a touch of sherry

While a perfectly competent blend, there is little here that makes me want more. The touch of peat sets it above the 12 Year, but the lack of complexity in the flavors keeps it from being a good value. For something with similar structure but more robust flavors, Johnnie Walker Green Label is probably the better choice. With that said, I think this comes close to Johnnie Walker Blue Label at a fraction of the price, though the latter is more flavorful.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal Extra

One of the consistent themes in the scotch whisky world these days is that if you need to pep up a release, throw more sherry at the problem. This is the conceit of Chivas Regal Extra - it exists at roughly the same price point as the standard 12 Year, but puts more sherry casks into the mix at the expense of an age statement.

This whisky is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal Extra

Nose: initially almost nonexistent - vague malt/grain and caramel, opening up into richer sherry with a nutty/savory edge and orange peel. After adding a few drops of water the sherry recedes slightly to reveal the malt and grain as well as some vanilla.

Taste: thin and watery up front, opens into caramel, malt/grain, and a strong overlay of sherry with a touch of something floral in the middle, with a bittersweet fadeout through greener notes and moderate oak tannins. After dilution it becomes flatter/grainier and the sherry recedes significantly.

Finish: bittersweet caramel and grain, sherry residue

When I first cracked the mini I thought it might be defective because the nose was so weak and the flavors were so watery. It was somewhat better on the second pass, suggesting that it needed some air to open up. But even at that point I found little to recommend it over the standard 12 Year - while the sherry gave it a little more interest, it was nothing spectacular or complex. For the same price I could get a well-aged, sherry matured single malt from Glenfarclas that will have far more richness and depth. Bottled at a more respectable 43% I think it could offer something more compelling, but as is I can't see the point.

Whisky Review: Dewar's 12 Year

Dewar's is the flagship blend for Bacardi's clutch of scotch whisky distilleries, which include Royal Brackla, Aberfeldy, Aultmore, Craigellachie, and Macduff. While there have been efforts over the last few years to raise the profile of its malts, the core of their business is still in their blends.

This whisky is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Dewar's 12 Year the Ancestor

Nose: a lot of grain whisky, wheat bread, creamy malt, distant sherry notes, dirty lemons, a little bit of funk, pine, and herbal character, a touch of floral vanilla. After adding a few drops of water it becomes even more dominated by the grain component, but more vanilla comes out.

Taste: rounded grain and malt sweetness with a sherry overlay up front, something floral around the middle, becomes grainier with continued flashes of sherry and sulfurous funk towards the back, very little oak. After dilution the grain becomes dominant but more sherry comes out.

Finish: lingering grain and earthy notes with creamy floral overtones

Wow, that's a lot of grain whisky. While there are bits and pieces of something interesting in this whisky, much of which I'm inclined to ascribe to Craigellachie, the grain whisky muscles almost everything else aside. It's not bad, but there's very little to make me recommend this, even as a cheap blend. It's pretty much a toss-up if you're choosing between this and Chivas Regal 12 Year, but I might give a slight nod to the latter. Something like Cutty Sark Prohibition is about the same price and offers significantly more robust flavors, if you need a cheaper blended whisky.

Whisky Review: Chivas Regal 12 Year

Chivas Regal is one of the most well-known blends in the world, owned by Pernod Ricard. This is the second biggest conglomerate in scotch whisky, with fifteen distilleries, including some of the biggest such as Glenlivet and the new Dalmunach. It is claimed that Strathisla is the 'home' of Chivas Regal and presumably this forms the biggest malt component in the blend, though it is likely that grain whisky from Strathclyde forms a much larger share.

This blend is bottled at 40% with coloring and chill filtration.

Chivas Regal 12 Year

Nose: very light - basic grain notes with a bit of malt, caramel, vanilla, a little solvent, herbal notes underneath, a faint hint of peat. After adding a few drops of water it goes even flatter.

Taste: simple malt/grain sweetness throughout, a little sherry roundness in the middle, and a surprisingly lack of oak tannins at the back. After dilution the grain whisky sticks out more and gives a bit of a bitter finish, but some fruit notes emerge (apples, pears), the sherry becomes bigger in the middle, and the oak becomes more noticeable.

Finish: grain, light oak, a bit of sherry residue

Well, it's a blend. As these things go, it manages to hit what I think was its mark: more or less inoffensive. Unlike Johnnie Walker Black Label, its most obvious competitor, there is little in the way of peat. This seems unsurprising since Pernod Ricard does not own any distilleries that regularly produce peated malt. Given the high demand over the last decade, that would not have left them in a position to trade for it in a regular fashion. So we're left with a much lighter whisky, without the dirtier backbone of JWB. With that said, it's not a bad blend by any stretch. It's just that you can get more interesting blends, like Isle of Skye 8 Year or Cutty Sark Prohibition, or basic single malts from Glenmorangie or Tomatin for only a few dollars more, so I don't think this is one I would buy again.

Whisky Review: Cutty Sark Prohibition

This whisky was created largely to capitalize on the popularity of the Prohibition era in the current cocktail world. It has all the hallmarks of the current moment: a round and bartender-friendly 50% ABV, a respectable price point, and a grossly exaggerated story.

So what's actually in here? While no specs have been released, as a blended whisky it's a mix of malt (with what seems like a higher proportion than many) and grain whisky that were in all likelihood mostly ex-bourbon, with possible a few sherry casks in the mix. Given that this is produced by Edrington, the most probable malts come from Glenrothes, Glenturret, Macallan, and Highland Park (probably the source of the peat in the mix). There are good odds that it has been colored with caramel and it may still be chill filtered despite the higher strength.

Cutty Sark Prohibition

Nose: balanced malt and grain, toffee, mild dry peat, floral vanilla, jammy berries, a little chocolate. After adding a few drops of water more peat comes out but it's also softer and ashier,

Taste: slightly bitter oak tannins throughout, citrus peel and citric sourness with dirty/earthy peat beginning around the middle, bitter grain with mild oak near the back. After dilution it becomes much sweeter and the oak tannins are subdued up front, the peat largely disappears into the oak near the back, and the citrus notes are mostly lost.

Finish: slightly sweet grain, vanilla, bitter oak, berry and peat residue

While this is far from being the best whisky I've ever tasted, it is undeniably a good value. There are not a lot of blended whiskies under $30 in the States right now that I would consider to really be drinkable, but this one is really quite good. The malt content makes itself known and the grain is not overly obtrusive. It has more peat than, say, Chivas Regal, so I think it would hold its own for a Johnnie Walker Black fan. Isle of Skye 8 Year remains my standard in that category, but this is a solid pick if you can't find that in your area. All in all a good effort by Edrington that I'm glad to see on the shelves. Hopefully more companies follow suit in releasing blends at reasonable price points that have more heft than the standard 40% ABV releases.

Whisky Review: Faultline Blend

While it's become increasingly common for stores to offer exclusive cask picks, very few have gone so far as to construct their own blends. It's both more technically challenging, as flavors need to be balanced while being conscious of the price of the components, and riskier as it requires buying much more whisky than the several hundred bottles that a single cask usually produces. However the folks at K&L Wines decided to take the plunge and release a blend under their Faultline label.

This whisky is bottled at a solid 50%, without coloring and probably without chill filtration given the proof.

I got this as part of a split with Michael Kravitz and MAO, who should have their own reviews up at the same time.

Faultline Blended Whisky

Nose: mossy/vegetal peat, a little seaweed, ginger snaps, cinnamon, nutmeg, cardamom, light grain and malt, bourbon cask berries and oak, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water, the peat becomes smokier and joins up with the oak to give an incense note.

Taste: basic malt and grain sweetness coupled with light berries and mild oak tannins throughout, peat pops out around the middle and rides on top while some sherry and chocolate plus more oak and berries emerge around the back. After dilution, the sherry spreads across the palate and gives it a thicker feel, while the peat retreats and integrates with the sherry and oak.

Finish: peat, oak, berry, chocolate, and malt/grain residue,

I have to hand it to the Davids, this is a rather well-constructed blended whisky at an eminently affordable price point. With that said, it only hit that point after I'd had the sample open for a number of months - when I first cracked the cap it was almost all young Ledaig assaulting my senses, which was rather overwhelming. With time the peat has settled down and integrated, providing a more pleasant experience overall. Now it's somewhere in the ballpark of Springbank, Highland Park, or Talisker. Speaking of which, adding a little bit of extra malt can really smooth it out - I particularly enjoyed adding a touch of Highland Park 15 Year, which amped up the sherry character and provided a bridge to the noisier Ledaig peat.

The closest comparable blend I can think of is Isle of Skye 8 Year, which packs a similar amount of peat at a similar price point, but at a reduced proof. All said and done, I think I would give a bit of an edge to the Faultline, simply because of the higher alcohol content letting it stretch further. I'll probably throw in a bottle the next time I order from K&L. For $25 it's hard to go far wrong as long as you enjoy some peat in your whisky.

Experimental Whisky: North British/Highland Park/Macallan Blend

I've made two different blends based on the pairing of North British grain whisky and Highland Park single malt, both components of Edrington's blends. The first contained only those two elements, while the second added Bunnahabhain to the mix. I finally got ahold of some Macallan and decided to see how that would influence the blend.

•17 mL Signatory North British 16 Year CS
•5 mL Highland Park 12 Year
•5 mL Highland Park 15 Year
•3 mL Macallan 12 Year
•3 mL water

North British/Highland Park/Macallan Blend

Nose: sweet grain, rich caramel, creamy vanilla, mossy peat with twigs, layers of sherry, fudge, thick malt, orange/lime peel, ham, incense, gently floral. After adding a few drops of water, the grain becomes more assertive, the sherry integrates with the peat and oak, and some seashore/shellfish notes emerge.

Taste: sweet grain with a layer of sherry on top up front, a solid undercurrent of well-integrated oak, becomes maltier in the middle with mossy peat and floral notes in the background, fades out with cotton candy and more grain. After dilution, it becomes sweeter up front and more integrated in the middle, with more peat, oak, incense, and baking spices at the back.

Finish: grain and malt, sherry residue, mossy peat, mild oak

It is perhaps unsurprising that this was more successful than the Bunnahabhain blend. Macallan and Highland Park are both owned by Edrington, which makes me suspect that they're sourcing their sherry casks from the same bodegas. Putting the two together amps up the sherry character without sidelining the peat as much as Bunnahabhain did. With that said, I don't think this is better than the blend made with Highland Park as the only malt component. This version may be more approachable, with the peat pushed somewhat into the background, but sometimes it's hard to beat the original.

Experimental Whisky: North British/Highland Park/Bunnahabhain Blend

After my first Highland Park/North British blend, I wondered what would happen if I added other components of Edrington's lineup to the mix. Bunnahabhain, while not currently under their ownership, has been a longstanding element of their blends.

•17 mL Signatory North British 16 Year CS
•5 mL Highland Park 12 Year
•5 mL Highland Park 15 Year
•3 mL Bunnahabhain 12 Year
•3 mL water

North British/Highland Park/Bunnahabhain Blend

Nose: balanced grain and malt, thick sherry, polished oak, and mild peat come together, caramel, herbal/floral, berries. After adding a few drops of water, it becomes creamier, with more vanilla and berries, the malt and grain integrate, and the sherry fades.

Taste: initial subdued grain/malt sweetness up front, sherry and berries take over around the middle, with undertones of oak, wood smoke, and peat at the back, fading out through slightly salty malt. After dilution, the malt and grain integrate, the saltiness comes in more early, the sherry fades into the background and integrates with the peat.

Finish: vegetal, grain, moderate oak, sherry residue, hints of peat

As Florin noted on my post reviewing Bunnahabhain 12 Year, it almost has too much flavor and that quality is noticeable here. I don't think I've ever had an unpeated single malt dominate a blend as much as Bunnahabhain does. This might have worked better with an unsherried Bunnahabhain as that felt like the component that was overwhelming the Highland Park, so further experiments will be warranted.

Experimental Whisky: Highland Park/North British Blend

An ongoing project is to explore blends that mimic the primary malts available to whisky conglomerates in Scotland. Edrington is the owner of two of the most iconic distilleries in Scotland, Macallan and Highland Park, as well as the less well-known Glenturret. They also own a stake in the North British grain distillery, which is shared with Diageo. Their primary blend, Famous Grouse, is one of the best selling in Scotland and is primarily based on their grain and malt distilleries.

While I didn't have any Macallan or Glenturret on hand, the different expressions of Highland Park provide a fairly broad palette of flavors. The 12 Year is smokier and has more European oak casks in its mix, while 15 Year is more refined and brings more American oak character.

•15 mL Signatory North British 16 Year CS
•5 mL Highland Park 12 Year
•5 mL Highland Park 15 Year
•3 mL water

Highland Park/North British Blend

Nose: well-integrated grain, sherry, and heathery peat, plus vanilla, burning twigs, malt, and something green. After adding a few drops of water, the sherry becomes brighter and the grain is more apparent.

Taste: sweet grain up front, quickly joined by solid sherry influence that carries through the palate, followed by dark chocolate, an undercurrent of earthy peat, and moderate oak tannins. After dilution, the sherry influence becomes brighter and stronger - spreading across the palate, with more grain and less peat showing up at the back.

Finish: solid oak, bittersweet grain, sherry residue, a touch of earthy peat

I was pleasantly surprised by just how good this was. The grain whisky reads almost like a bourbon cask malt, likely helped by the Highland Park 15 Year. The sherry character from the malts balances well and the smoke is more present than I would have expected. Admittedly, this would solidly qualify as a 'premium blend' if Edrington decided to put something similar out, but at the right price I would definitely buy it.

Experimental Whisky: North British/Auchentoshan/Bowmore Blend

One of the goals I've had in exploring blends is to see if I can replicate some of the blends that are already out there. While I don't have nearly as much whisky to work with, I can at least approach some of the flavor profiles.

Morrison-Bowmore, for a long time (before Suntory snapped up Beam), was composed of three different malt distilleries - the eponymous Bowmore on Islay, Auchentoshan in the Lowlands, and Glen Garioch in the Highlands. Unsurprisingly, these three malts were combined into a proprietary blend called Rob Roy.

While I currently don't own anything from Glen Garioch, I do have the standard 12 Year expressions from Auchentoshan and Bowmore and have previously found that they work well together.

•14 mL Sig. North British 16 Year CS
•6 mL water
•7 mL Auchentoshan 12 Year
•3 mL Bowmore 12 Year

North British/Auchentoshan/Bowmore Blend

Nose: fresh wheat bread, clean malt, grassy, cotton candy, grapes, wood smoke, a touch of mossy peat, dusty oak. After adding a few drops of water, it becomes brighter and more malty, the sherry is more apparent, and the peat really stands out - becoming much more smoky and coastal.

Taste: moderately sweet malt and grain up front, gaining sherry overtones and an undercurrent of oak with a bit of peat and smoke further back. After dilution, the malt becomes sweeter and more prominent, the peat and oak integrate while spreading out across the palate, giving it a more bittersweet profile overall.

Finish: grain, malt, mild peat and oak, a bit of sherry residue

For a grain-heavy blend proofed down to 40%, this was surprisingly tasty. Interestingly, the malt actually came to the fore after adding some more water, which is a property I've noticed from a handful of other blends before. This leads me to wonder if there is a rational for bottling most blends at a lower proof, beyond simple economics. Maybe some of them really do just work better that way? At the very least, I'm starting to believe that lower bottling proofs make the flavors of grain whisky less readily apparent, which would be a strong incentive for blends that are composed primarily from grain whisky.

Experimental Whisky: North British/Arran/Tamdhu/Hazelburn/Bunnahabhain Blend

One of the main goals of in making blends is creating balance - carefully adding more flavorful malts to grain whisky. When that comes to peat and sherry, a little goes a long way. So this was my attempt to add a bit of everything, hopefully keeping any one element from dominating the others, at a respectable but not overwhelming strength of 46%.

•15 mL Signatory North British 16 Year CS
•5 mL Arran Bourbon Single Cask
•2 mL Signatory Tamdhu 8 Year CS
•1 mL Hazelburn 8 Year CS
•1 mL Chieftain’s peated Bunnahabhain 16 Year CS for K&L
•5 mL H2O

North British/Arran/Tamdhu/Hazelburn/Bunnahabhain Blend

Nose: grain with a mossy peat edge, a whiff of sherry and fresh soil, a little green, cured meat, gentle oak, seashore, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water, there is more grain and peat, plus something nutty emerges.

Taste: sweet grain and malt with bourbon cask influence up front, vanilla/floral/vegetal in the middle, sliding through mild sherry influence at the back. After dilution, it becomes more integrated - the sherry shifts forward and the peat arrives earlier.

Finish: grain, peat, oak

This blend hews most closely to the recipe set out by Alfred Barnard than any other I've made, though it is even more grain-heavy, making it more akin to modern commercial blends. The balance of grain whisky, bourbon cask malt, sherried malt, and peated malt is just right. Every element is present, but none dominates, providing a pleasant but relatively unchallenging experience. The flavor density is solid given the final proof, but it reads as fairly smooth. This is what I want blends like Johnnie Walker to be, but they never quite seem to get there. Nice to know that I can do for self.

Experimental Whisky: Tamdhu 8 CS/Hazelburn 8 CS/Arran Bourbon Single Cask/North British 16 Year

After writing my post about blending whisky, I decided to try making a blend with a bit more precision.

This is a roughly even (a milliliter or so off in some cases) split between an Arran Bourbon Single Cask, Signatory Cask Strength Tamdhu 8 Year, Hazelburn 8 Year Cask Strength, and Signatory North British 16 Year for Binny's. All said and done should clock in around 58% and all of the component whiskies were uncolored and un-chill filtered.

Blended Whisky #1

Nose: a thick layer of sherry on top, sweet raisins, fresh malt core, a touch of grain, light vanilla, caramel/brown sugar, something a meaty/savory, a bit of Campbeltown brine, sawdust. After adding a splash of water, the sherry is toned down significantly, letting the dusty grain, brine, and meaty notes shine.

Taste: fruity/dank sherry rides on top of everything, green/lightly peaty/earthy/dirty with dried orange peel and a heavy seasoning of black pepper around the middle, slides into malt/grain, mild oak, and extra pepper. After dilution, the sherry becomes a lighter bottom note rather than a top note, with malt and grain dominating, while the oak almost disappears and the earthy peat becomes stronger at the back.

Finish: grainy bitterness, moderate oak, sherry dregs, hints of dirty peat

This fudges Alfred Barnard's classic recipe, but it's close. One Speysider, an Island distillery that hews fairly close to Speyside/Highland, a Campbeltown, and a well-aged grain. Something peated from Islay definitely would have given this more punch, though I was pleasantly surprised by how much of that the Hazelburn brought to the mix. Also surprising was how strongly the sherry from the Tamdhu came through over the other three bourbon cask whiskies. Trying the Tamdhu by itself I found it to not be very intensely sherried, but mixing it with the other three seems to bring that element to the fore. Goes to show that how a malt whisky behaves on its own is not necessarily indicative of how it will behave as part of a blend.

The Basics of Whisky Blending

Since the advent of the patent still in the mid-19th century, blends have reigned supreme in Scotland. While these days they may not always garner the critical acclaim of single malts, they were considered the best of what Scotland had to offer. To quote Alfred Barnard, who toured every distillery in the United Kingdom in the late-19th century:

"It is a fact well known that the old-established Scotch houses, above all others, are enabled to give a higher class of whisky, by reason of their careful study of the science of blending, which they have now reduced to a fine art....The idea is, to produce a blend so perfect that it strikes the consumer as being one liquid, not many – i.e., having absolute unity, tasting as one whole."

This theory of blends is coincidentally the same for one of my other great loves - tiki drinks - that combining spirits in multiple styles will produce sets of flavors that are impossible to create by any one distillery on its own.

To a lesser degree, this principle is at work in every bottle of single malt that doesn't come from a single cask. Most single malts are combinations of many different casks, which are put together to create a consistent flavor profile from batch to batch. More variety can be created by aging malt whisky in different varieties of casks, but there will always be a delineated range of flavors that evolve from the same spirit being put into oak casks. Even distillers that produce multiple styles of spirit in-house, such as Springbank, Benriach, Benromach, Bunnahabhain, and Bladnoch (that's a lot of Bs, isn't it?) are ultimately still producing those spirits with the same equipment, which will create noticeable similarities between the different varieties.

The next level would be blend malts, which are mixtures of malt whiskies from two or more distilleries. This vastly increases the range of possible flavors as there are dozens of different malt distilleries in Scotland. Compass Box is one of the most lauded producers of blended malts in Scotland, producing expressions like Spice Tree and Peat Monster. Other producers include independent bottlers like Douglas Laing, Wemyss, and Duncan Taylor.

Finally, there are blended whiskies, which are mixtures of malt whisky and grain whisky, either from multiple distilleries or a single distillery (Ben Nevis and Lochside briefly produced both malt and grain whisky). The components of a single blend will often include malt whisky from a dozen or more different distilleries with grain whisky from several different distilleries (there are only a handful of grain distilleries in Scotland). This means that the blenders putting together each expression have an enormous range of whiskies to work with, which, as I noted above, makes it possible to create flavor profiles that would be impossible to produce with the products from a single distillery.

While the grain whisky component is usually thought of as a way to dilute and stretch more flavorful and expensive malt whisky, it does bring its own set of flavors. Unfortunately it's very difficult to get a sense of what grain whisky has to offer as there are so few expressions available (even fewer that are cask strength) in the US for reasonable prices (Haig Club doesn't count).  Corn and wheat (the two most common grains used in grain whisky) have their own flavor profiles that are distinct both from each other and from malt whisky.

John Walker & Sons - from Alfred Barnard

So where does one begin if they don't have access to warehouses full of maturing casks (and the accompanying headaches that come with such a big job)? Probably the best place is by blending different expressions of malt whisky. Most whisky enthusiasts will have a number of bottles open at a given time and at least one of them is going to be more neutral than the others. Basic expressions from Glenfiddich/livet/morangie tend to be relatively easy going whiskies that can absorb more flavorful whiskies, such as heavily peated or heavily sherried malts. I have found that whiskies that are already at a fairly low proof come together more easily than cask or batch strength whiskies, so this is a great place for something in the 40-46% range. As demonstrated by Ralfy, a good way to do this is to line up several glasses of a more neutral malt and add increasing numbers of drops of a more flavorful malt down the line. This is a great demonstration of why those heavily flavored whiskies are so critical to blends, as small amounts can radically alter the flavor profile of less flavorful whiskies.

Another place to start is with a blended whisky like Johnnie Walker Black Label or Compass Box Artist's Blend. These already contain a number of different malt and grain whiskies, but their flavor profiles can be shifted dramatically by the addition of a bit more malt whisky, especially if it's heavily flavored. Wish your Johnnie Black was a bit more peated? Pour in a touch of Ardbeg or Laphroaig. Wish Artist's Blend was more aggressively sherried? Add a bit of Glenfarclas or Macallan. Even a tiny splash of malt can pull the blend in a new direction. This is, coincidentally, a great way to stretch your expensive single malts. While the home blends won't be quite as robustly flavored as the single malts, you may be pleasantly surprised to find how flavorful the blends can be with a little doctoring.

From there you can move on to more complex blended malts. Again, it's good to start with something a little more neutral as your base - Clynelish is fantastic for this purpose, Arran is also a solid pick, and the multitude of Speyside distilleries exist largely because they form such a good base for blends. Bourbon cask malts are probably the best, as the vanilla and oak will help to give balance and backbone to the other components. Refill sherry would be next best, especially if it's on the lighter side. The two simplest axes to work with are cask type and peat - both can nicely inflect the base malt without overwhelming it as long as you are careful about how much you add. You can try layering multiple styles of the same influence, e.g. the more coastal notes of sherried Bunnahabhain with the cleaner character of a sherried Speysider or multiple styles of peat from different parts of the country. Alternatively, you can stack influences, putting sherry together with peat for an elegant but smokey profile. At this point you will start to notice how different whiskies fit with each other, either meshing to form a coherent whole or remaining distinct elements within the blend. There aren't hard and fast rules - much of this has to be learned through trial and error, though caution and a light hand can help to reduce the number of drams that have to be poured down the sink.

Finally, if you can get your hands on some grain whisky that you don't mind tinkering with, you can go all the way to making true blended whisky from scratch. One tricky element is that the grain whiskies that are bottled are sometimes less neutral than what gets used in commercial blends. Experiment carefully as they can strongly influence the flavor of the blends you make with them. With that said, I highly recommend the Signatory North British 16 Year bottled for Binny's as one of the few reasonably priced cask strength single grain whiskies available in the States right now. If you can, experiment with different types of grain whisky - most grain distilleries currently use wheat as their primary grain, but Invergordon still uses maize as its primary grain and older ones made before the 1980s are also more likely to be made from maize (a switch occurred at that point as locally grown wheat became more economically attractive than American maize). A typical commercial blend is likely to be 50-80% grain whisky, but you can also aim for something more like Compass Box's Great King Street New York Blend, which was only 20% grain whisky. As I've already noted, experimentation is going to be critical to finding out what kind of blends work best for you. Though one great place to start is the recipe offered by Alfred Barnard in his piece "The Art of Blending Scotch Whisky", which utilizes malt and grain whiskies from every region of the country.

Glenlivets would today be called Speyside whiskies - many distilleries in the area used to append -Glenlivet to their name before cease-and-desist orders were sent out by the owners of The Glenlivet. Between the Speyside, Lowland, and grain whiskies, this should give a fairly mellow and balanced whisky aided by the more characterful Islay and Campbeltown malts (though somewhat less if you stick with unpeated whiskies from Bruichladdich, Bunnahabhain, and Hazelburn). As noted in Barnard's text, using some sherried whiskies in the mix will also help to give the final product character and body.

While it's perfectly acceptable to simply pour different whiskies into a glass, give it a swirl, and taste the results, if you really want to understand what's going on measuring each component and letting the result marry for days or weeks will be critical. For making single drams, a 50 mL glass graduated cylinder is perfect along with 30, 50, and 60 mL sample bottles for storing the blends. Additionally, this will let you more precisely proof down blends that are made with cask or batch strength whiskies, as they may be more harmonious (or just taste different) in the 40-50% ABV range.

I'll leave you with some general things I've learned. They're limited by the particular bottles that I've had open while carrying out these experiments and I'm sure I'll find out more in time, but here they are:

•Some peated whiskies are more forgiving than others. Highland Park and Bowmore give you a bigger margin for error and are less likely to dominate a blend, whereas Laphroaig requires a very light touch as it can all too easily dominate a blend. Others like Ardbeg, Benriach, and Springbank will run somewhere more in the middle.
•Sherried whiskies will initially dominate a blend right after mixing, but integrate more thoroughly with time.
•Adding more of a bourbon cask malt can help to smooth over the cracks between disparate malts - slip more in if things don't seem to be coming together.
•Don't be afraid to try malts that seem at first blush like they would clash - sometimes things like Auchentoshan and Bowmore can go together surprisingly well.
•Be extra careful with batch and cask strength malts when adding them to lower proof malts or blends. The extra alcohol also means extra flavor, so a little bit will go a long way.

For further advice, you can turn to the K&L Wines Spirits Journal and the Master of Malt blog, both of which have talked about the process of making blends at home.

Why Doesn't America Have Independent Bottlers Like Everywhere Else?

People who become interested in scotch will invariably discover the seeming multitude of independent bottlers who buy spirit or mature casks from any number of distilleries and bottle it (usually) with the name of the distillery prominently displayed on the label. Some are long established companies, like Gordon & Macphail or Signatory, while others are small operations that bottle a handful of casks before fading into obscurity. But with rare exceptions *cough*Glenfarclas*cough* the owners of the distilleries that they source spirit from are perfectly willing to have other companies use the names of those distilleries on their products.

The situation in America is very different. While there have always been companies that operated on roughly the same principle - buy whiskey from large distilleries and bottle it under their own labels - it is extremely rare for those labels to state exactly where the whiskey was distilled, other than the state it came from. With rare exceptions, e.g. LDI/MGP, that makes it very difficult to determine who made the whiskey in a bottle.

Until fairly recently, no one was particularly bothered by this state of affairs. But the whiskey boom of the last 5-10 years has resulted in a confluence of factors that has radically altered drinkers' attitudes. There has been a proliferation of new outfits buying whiskey from major distilleries and bottling it under their own labels at the same time as a lot of genuine new microdistilleries have been opened as a result of the increase in demand for new whiskey. On top of this, many of those drinkers are very interested in knowing exactly where the spirit they're consuming came from and how it was made.

This has, unsurprisingly, led to a lot of shifty dealing. The now classic example is Templeton rye whiskey. They were one of the first outfits to discover the untapped resource of Lawrence Distillers Indiana (LDI), which had been quietly producing a unique 95% rye mashbill whiskey. As a distillery that was already focused on selling bulk whiskey, they were perfectly happy to sell it to a new company. Templeton took that whiskey, added a story about Al Capone's favorite rye and how the recipe had been handed down over the generations, and proceeded to sell it at a very healthy markup.

It was a pretty good business plan. For a while. While plenty of customers and journalists were willing to swallow the story whole (in no small part because even some of the most knowledgeable people in whiskey didn't know about LDI when Templeton was first released), others started poking around and eventually sussed out the source. It took a while for the facts to percolate into public consciousness, but they have now resulted in a lawsuit against Templeton claiming false advertising. Similar accusations have been leveled against Whistlepig, who sourced 100% rye Canadian whiskey while giving a wink and a nod about their farm distillery in Vermont (which didn't have any stills), and Michter's, who have taken the name of a famous and now defunct distillery and used it to sell sourced whiskey.

Many other outfits, while not being intentionally shady, never state exactly where their sourced whiskey is from for the simple reason that most of the major distilleries include nondisclosure clauses in their sales contracts (though MGP no longer does). So even when a bottler would like to state the provenance of their whiskey, they are left with little to do but drop hints, rather than stating the source plainly. A few will disclose the mashbills of the whiskey they are bottling, which in some cases allows the astute drinker to suss out the source. But given how few different mash bills there are for bourbon and rye whiskey, those are often little better than guesses. This is in marked contrast to Scottish indies like Cadenhead and Alchemist who clearly the state the source of their bourbons (usually Heaven Hill).

There are a number of historical and structural reasons for the differences between independent bottlers in Scotland (and the rest of the world) and non-distiller producers (NDPs) in America. A major factor is the concentration of production in America. The vast majority of the whiskey produced in America is made by a handful of companies (Brown-Forman, Heaven Hill, Wild Turkey, Four Roses, Buffalo Trace, Jim Beam, Diageo, and MGP) at a slightly greater number of distilleries. This came about largely because of Prohibition, which both pushed a lot of distilleries out of business and, after Repeal, encouraged consolidation as the government preferred to work with a smaller number of easily regulated entities. That concentration of ownership means that each distillery produces a wide variety of brands, often from what appear to be different places. This has meant that more established NDPs have been able to happily coexist with the majors' brands as they often look very similar, e.g. Luxco's Ezra Brooks, which is distilled by Heaven Hill and has a label very reminiscent of Evan Williams or Jim Beam. Even major companies like Diageo play this game, with Bulleit bourbon being produced by Four Roses (though this is slated to change as they are opening their own distillery) and Bulleit as well as George Dickel ryes being made by MGP, while carrying a story about the Bulleit family recipe.

So when new NDPs began to blossom during the current whiskey boom, they were entering a market already replete with dubious backstories. This was also among the backdrop of microdistilleries popping up across the country, who all touted the superior quality of their 'craft' spirits. So while the majors tended to present stories based around 19th century ancestors, the smaller outfits were more likely to talk up the 'artisanal' qualities of their spirits. Many skirted around the issue without making outright lies, talking about the quality of the water used to proof down the spirit or other minor contributions, while hinting at their superior quality to justify the enhanced price tags. And let's be honest, a lot of their customers were quite satisfied with the stories they were purchasing alongside those spirits and many no doubt tasted something better than a regular bottle of Jim Beam.

Let's contrast this with Scotland. While ownership of distilleries may be nearly as concentrated (roughly the same number of majors own most of the distilleries), production is far more dispersed, with over a hundred rather than a dozen big distilleries. Even more important is the tradition of blending in Scotland, where the output of many malt distilleries, plus one or more grain distilleries, are combined to produce a single product. This necessitates the purchase and trading of casks from one distillery with others, as blenders seek the components they need to maintain a consistent flavor profile. The earliest independent bottlers grew out of the blend trade and some still have a hand in it. So there is a long tradition of warehouses containing casks of whisky from a multitude of different distilleries. It is perhaps unsurprising that some of these companies decided to start bottling some choice casks on their own, rather than making them components of blends. Because the owners of distilleries were often dependent on others for their own blends, the person you sold to today might be someone you needed to buy whisky from tomorrow. So a sort of gentleman's agreement evolved around independent bottlers, who were (usually) allowed to sell the output of other distilleries with the provenance clearly stated. That isn't to say that all NDPs in Scotland are perfectly explicit about their whisky - the blends themselves and many 'mystery malts' are just as hazy - only that in Scotland and other countries it is possible to be more explicit.

The lack of a similar blending tradition in America (it was quite novel and a little confusing when High West began to produce American whiskeys built from the output of multiple distilleries) means that there is no comparable system of trading spirits between distillers or independent companies. Sales of whiskey are largely unidirectional and primarily a matter of contracts. A distiller will sell their output when they have excess capacity and will let those contracts lapse when demand for their products rises. Additionally, the aforementioned plethora of brands produced by single distilleries means that they have an incentive to prevent NDPs from disclosing the source of their whiskey, as it would break their long-established illusions - hence the nondisclosure agreements that most NDPs are forced to sign.

At this point it would likely require a major rewriting of regulations to change the status quo. While the TTB is making an effort to enforce the labeling regulations that are on the books, these are fairly minimal when it comes to source disclosure - the state where a whiskey was distilled and the state where it was bottled are about as close as it gets right now. As I noted, the majors have no incentive to change the status quo as they aren't the ones who are hurt if customers who purchased whiskey from an NDP get mad about a brand leading them to believe that it was 'hand crafted' or any other sort of nonsense. And while it would be nice if the NDPs militated for more transparency, many of them benefit from obfuscation and those who would like to be more open have little to no leverage to bring about change. Ultimately, if customers want to know where their whiskey comes from they will have to insist upon it, either by cajoling the NDPs to disclose as much information as they are legally able to do so or by lobbying the government to change regulations to require more information on labels.

Whisky Review: Sia Blended Whisky

Sia is the only whisky I know of that got its start through Kickstarter. You can find most of the history there, but Carin's goal in creating the blend was to make something that would be palatable to new scotch drinkers without turning off more seasoned drinkers.

This whisky is bottled at 43% and is mostly likely chill filtered and colored.

Thanks to Carin for the sample.

Sia Blended Whisky

Nose: the grain whisky component is rather strong with green musky overtones, citrus (orange, lime, and lemon), digging deeper the malt can be found, with light peat, cured meat, and dank sherry embedded in the structure. After adding a few drops of water, it shifts towards the grain whisky and underripe fruit elements, with more ethereal sherry underneath, and some rhubarb pops out.

Taste: the grain whisky is once again the strongest element - especially at the beginning, with not entirely pleasant sweetness and young oak flavors, which fade through something metallic, underripe fruit, and floral esters, but eventually turns into more agreeable malt notes of sherry, cinnamon porridge, and peat near the back. After dilution, there is significantly more sweetness up front, some new make/green malt and mixed bourbon cask fruit right behind, the floral notes gain strength in the middle, then slide into almost fudge-y oak, and with time the flavors spread out and integrate more.

Finish: dank sherry, an edge of vegetal peat, grain and malt

All in all, this is a well thought out blend that suffers only because some of the grain whisky needs a bit more maturity. The components largely balance and complement each other, forming a reasonably coherent whole. It's light and eminently drinkable without being insipid - the above-minimum bottling proof gives it enough flavor density while producing almost no alcohol burn. The inclusion of small amounts of both sherry cask and peated malt go a long way to give malt drinkers something to engage with, though they're not the center of the show by any means. If you enjoy blends like Compass Box Artist's Blend, this will probably appeal.

Ultimately the stumbling block for me would be price. It retails around $45-50 in the US, which is firmly in single malt territory. While I can see this being a good whisky for bars to keep around, both because of the classy packaging and the approachability of the spirit, it's not something I can see myself buying. As they say, your mileage may vary.

Whisky Review: Black Bull 30 Year

While the 12 Year expression that I recently reviewed is a fairly standard, albeit well-done, blend, the 30 Year was a one-off with fairly interesting history.

Most blends are made from individual casks of malt and grain whisky. However, there are occasionally casks that were 'blended at birth'. This means that new make grain whisky and new make malt whisky were combined, then filled into a cask together. Theoretically this gives the two components much more time to integrate and harmonize with each other.

The components of this blend (50/50 grain and malt) were distilled in the 1970s, blended together, aged in sherry casks for at least thirty years, then bottled at 50% ABV without coloring or chill filtration. I can't find any information about which distilleries the components of this blend came from, so unfortunately that will have to remain a mystery.

Black Bull 30 Year

Nose: both dank and bright sherry cask influence inflected by grain whisky, stewed fruit, prunes, raisin reduction - almost like wood smoke, lemon and lime peel, cinnamon brown sugar, burnt sugar over oak with a touch of barrel char, porridge, vanilla, malt, rich caramel, mint and floral overtones. After adding a few drops of water, the sherry and grain integrate to give a creamier kind of wine influence, with the floral notes tucked inside,

Taste: surprising amount of alcohol heat, clear balance between malt and grain whisky flavors, sherry and grain (corn and wheat) throughout, with a shift from dank to bright across the palate, almost syrupy sweetness, citrus peel in the middle, sliding into polished oak at the back, mint overtones throughout. After dilution, the sherry mostly pushes aside the grain until the back, with the flavors becoming a bit flatter and less bright, but with the alcohol burn mostly tamed, and the mint becoming more vegetal.

Finish: slightly vegetal malt spirit notes, sherry residue, grain, very mild oak

What I find most interesting about this whisky is that, despite being blended at birth and spending three decades in oak, the malt and grain whisky remain distinct elements rather than having integrated into a whole. As I noted, the grain and malt components are unknown, but I feel like the sherry dominates the experience so much that it's almost irrelevant. The one thing I am fairly confident about is that all of the malt was unpeated, as I don't get even a whiff of it.

If you like heavily sherried single malts, I can almost guarantee that you would enjoy this. When it was released about five years ago, the price was downright cheap at around $100 a bottle (this is also the price I got it at, as it was on closeout in Oregon), though it pushed up above $150 some years later as old whisky became more popular and people warmed up to blends. However, as it was a one-off, it's also nearly impossible to find anymore. There have been multiple releases of a 40 Year, which is obviously more expensive, but actually pretty reasonably priced around $250 when you consider that the 25 Year releases from many distilleries are now that expensive. I'll be keeping my eye on other versions of Black Bull, because Duncan Taylor seems to be putting quality whisky into the line.