New Cocktails: Hello Stranger

While I've been getting a lot of my drinks from the Art of the Shim lately, I've had my eye out for other vermouth-based cocktails. This one, care of Imbibe, caught my eye in its simplicity and relatively low ABV profile.

 

Hello Stranger

 

2 oz sweet vermouth

0.25 oz brandy

0.25 oz passion fruit syrup

 

Combine all ingredients in a glass with crushed ice, swizzle, then optionally garnish with lemon wheels and sprigs of fresh thyme.

 

The nose has big grape notes from the vermouth and brandy with some passion fruit peeking around the edges. The sip begins sweetly with passion fruit and brandy plus some nice floral notes, then flows into grapes and quinine bitterness at the back. The finish is relatively dry and woody, driven by the vermouth.

Much like the Rhum Dandy Shim, this feels like a drink best suited for summer. It's nice and refreshing without being at all tepid. I do wish I had gone with the optional garnish since I think a touch of lemon would have helped brighten it up, but it doesn't feel out of balance without. 

 

Using Punt e Mes instead of Miró Rojo gave the drink something of a darker cast. But I happen to like bitter drinks so this still hits the spot. The recommendation of a Spanish sweet vermouth makes sense as I tend to find them a little bit simpler, so something like my go-to Cocchi di Torino might have had a bit too much going on and muscled out the other ingredients. A more workable twist might be Lustau Rojo, which has a similar profile to the Miró, but adds in some savory notes that could play well against the brandy.

Cognac Review: Park Extra

And finally we come to the fancy decanter. Which I don't have. This is also one of the few releases in their core lineup that is entirely from one cru rather than being a blend of several.

This expression uses grapes from Grande Champagne, filled into 350 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for twelve months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park Extra

Nose: very oak-driven with a balance between fresher and more polished notes, maple syrup, grape and berries in the background, creamy vanilla, mushrooms, charred meat, floral notes, citrus peel, and a touch of tropical fruit. After adding a few drops of water the fruit is amplified and becomes stronger, pushing back on the oak.

Taste: grape sweetness up front, quickly joined by moderately tannic oak, creaminess with a tinge of vanilla, and citric top notes, followed by an oak-y bittersweet fade out with some marshmallow and chocolate. After dilution the fruit up front is brighter and more syrupy, a bit of chocolate comes out around the middle, while the oak becomes mellower and less tannic, the citrus at the back turns into pith and the oak there becomes toasted/charred.

Finish:grape residue, polished oak, lemon/grapefruit peel

This is a return to something closer to the XO Traditional with big oak-driven aromas and flavors right off the bat. With time the aromas unwind and become far more complex, but I never got that from either the flavors or the finish. Given the stratospheric price point on this expression (gotta pay for that fancy packaging!), I would give it a miss.

Cognac Review: Park XO Cigar Blend

Cigar blends are one of those slightly anachronistic features of the spirits industry that still appear from place to place. While the pairing has been around for centuries, smoking is falling out of fashion and outright banned in many public places including bars.

This expression uses grapes from Grande Champagne and Petite Champagne, filled into 350 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for twelve months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park XO Cigar Blend

Nose: delicate mixed fruit over restrained toasted oak, rich berries, almost sherried grape notes, creamy vanilla, orange peel. After adding a few drops of water it initially shifts closer to the XO Traditional with maple syrup, more overt oak, and sweet grape notes, then the vanilla and berries come back with some floral notes emerging after some time in the glass.

Taste: big grape sweetness throughout, fades into mildly tannic toasted oak with some citrus peel at the back. After dilution the up front sweetness becomes almost piercing, some mixed berries emerge around the middle, while the oak is diminished but becomes more polished and tannic.

Finish: sweet grape notes, mild oak, mixed citrus peel

Contrary to my expectations the oak in this expression is much more restrained, letting the fruitier notes shine through. It may be this is part of the design - if this is going to be complimented by the smoke of a cigar, there is less need for the bass notes of oak. The aromas are fairly engaging, though I found the flavors overly simple. While that still makes it better than the XO Traditional to me, there's absolutely no way I can see this justifying its price tag. It's entirely possible that there's a lot of older eau de vie in here, but I'm just not getting the complexity I would expect at nearly $200.

Cognac Review: Park XO Traditional Réserve

This is something of the odd one out in this lineup since it appears that the expression has been reformulated since this tasting set was released. What was a blend of multiple crus has been reworked into 100% Grande Champagne. Which is all to say that this may not be representative of what you can find now.

This expression uses grapes from four different regions - Grande Champagne, Petite Champagne, Fin Bois, and Borderies, filled into 400 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for twelve months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park XO Traditional Réserve

Nose: big polished oak notes, maple syrup, fresh cut grass, a little plastic, mushrooms, vanilla, grape in the background, pink bubblegum, a touch of something floral. After adding a few drops of water the oak becomes even stronger while the other aromas (except for some maple syrup and honey) are largely washed out.

Taste: big grape sweetness with oak tannins underneath, fades out into cedar, bittersweet polished oak, and grape. After dilution the oak becomes stronger but also sweeter, producing an even more uniform progression of flavors through the palate.

Finish: grape sweetness, moderately tannic oak

This is disappointing in exactly the way I would have expected. Once you get above $100, a lot of producers construct their blends around what customers believe an older, more expensive spirit should taste like rather than what it could be. This is basically sweet with a lot of oak, which could be obtained from an entry-level armagnac for a third the price. I still have two more XO expressions to go, but after this I'm not getting my hopes up since it appears they spent even more time in smaller new oak casks.

Cognac Review: Park Borderies

Maison Park has an interesting twist in the middle of their lineup - instead of Napoleon or some other fanciful name to mark the midpoint between their VSOP and XO expressions, they decided to focus on their home region of the Borderies. I find this to be a really interesting opportunity to gain some understanding of how regions influence the different styles of cognac without having to buy a specialty single cask or limited release.

As the name suggests, this is produced from 100% Borderies grapes, filled into 400 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for ten months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park Borderies

Nose: classic cognac notes of grape, a little alcohol heat, gently floral, woody baking spices, honeycomb, green apple and pear, ripe berries, citrus peel, and a touch of incense. After adding a few drops of water the honey notes become stronger, the apple and pear become fresher, the oak becomes a little more tannic, but some of the complexity is suppressed amid softer aromas.

Taste: sweet with strong fruity notes of grape, berry, apple, and pear up front, soft oak beginning in the middle and carrying through to the back where it is joined by some floral notes. After dilution the fruit up front becomes stronger but less distinct and returns right at the back, the oak becomes even softer until the very back, and the floral notes are largely quashed until the finish.

Finish: caramel, floral, bittersweet grape, mild oak

This is essentially what I expected the VSOP to be. While there's nothing stunning, it has a solid level of complexity and leans into the floral notes that are a hallmark of its origins. Water shifts it in an even sweeter direction, though I find the loss of complexity to be disappointing. It does make me wonder what this spirit could have been with a higher bottling proof and a little less caramel. With a bit of a punch up I think it could hold its own against single malts in a similar price range.

In a Sidecar the nose is very floral, almost overwhelming the orange notes. The sip opens bittersweet with Seville orange and floral top notes, becoming rather creamy with some lemo around the middle, then fading out somewhat limply. The finish is rather muted with some cognac notes and a bit of orange.

Well, that was a bit disappointing. While this definitely brings floral notes to a cocktail, it doesn't fit in the way that the VSOP did. With that said, I can see this being used alongside a more rounded cognac to bring some floral character without it being all of the base spirit.

Cognac Review: Park VSOP

As with most cognac houses, Park's VSOP expression is the next step up from their entry-level VS (though they also have an Organic Fins Bois that is comparably priced).

In keeping with the upgraded profile, the VSOP is constructed from 40% Fins bois, 40% Petite Champagne, and 20% Grande Champagne grapes, filled into 400 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for eight months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park VSOP

Nose: darker than the VS - caramel, maple syrup, a rounded creaminess, light toasted oak, cinnamon and woody baking spices, a little green grass, gently floral. After adding a few drops of water it shifts towards the oak, grass, and something a little funky (hard boiled eggs?), but it also has even less intensity.

Taste: syrupy maple sweetness up front with both grape and cask character, a little citrus peel around the middle, some grassy/hay notes in the background that grow stronger toward the back, drier but not particular tannic going into the finish. After dilution it becomes softer and sweeter, but less syrupy, with a thick layer of caramel throughout, a floral overlay around the middle, and some mixed fruit with light oak tannins coming out around the back.

Finish: slightly cardboard-y oak, flat grape notes, caramel, lingering vanilla and grapefruit

While this is a clear upgrade from the VS in terms of smoothness and richness, I was somewhat disappointed that there wasn't much of an improvement in complexity. While it's a more engineered product, I think Rémy Martin VSOP is a big upgrade over this.

In a Sidecar the nose is balanced between orange from the liqueur and floral notes from the cognac. The sip opens with grape and orange sweetness, backed up by a touch of aspirin bitterness, then fades into bittersweet orange with some oak tannins at the back. The finish continues the orange notes with some cognac roundness arriving.

That was... not bad. While not the most characterful cognac, the VSOP does manage to hold its own here and keep the weird parts of the Ferrand Curaçao in check. While it's a little expensive for mixing, I'm willing to say that this is a fairly solid pick.

Cognac Review: Park VS

Cognac Park has something of a peculiar history. The distillery goes back to 1880 and has been in the hands of the Tessendier family ever since. However, the Park brand was developed as a collaboration between the distillery and Dominic Park, a Scotsman, in 1993. In 2008 the distillery purchased the brand and everything has been in house since then.

While the distillery is situation in the Borderies, Park gets wines from all over the Cognac region to ensure that they have a broad pallet with which to construct their expressions. With the exception of their single region releases, each will be a blend of spirits from 2-4 different regions.

The VS is built from 50% Fins Bois and 50% Petite Champagne, filled into 400 L fresh lightly toasted barrels for six months, transferred to used casks, then blended and bottled at 40%, probably with various adjustments and chill filtration. The L13 bottling code on the neck makes me assume that this was put together in 2013, which would be consistent with how slowly specialty bottles move in Oregon.

Cognac Park VS

Nose: rather faint - alcohol burn, some acetone, grape and barrel sweetness, maybe a touch of something floral and citrus. After adding a few drops of water the aromas shift significantly to vanilla, fresh apples, oak, bright caramel, and a stronger floral note.

Taste: rather sweet up front with caramel and grape carrying through to the back, some fresh apple around the middle, then a touch of oak tannins and some rounder marshmallow notes at the back. After dilution it becomes rounder up front and some more well-defined oak emerges at the back.

Finish: balanced caramel, grape, and oak plus lingering vanilla

This is honestly pretty forgettable at full strength. There's practically no complexity, even compared to stuff like Hennessy or Courvoisier. The only redeeming feature is that there are no overt flaws or off-putting flavors, though I wouldn't recommend spending too much time sniffing it. Water, oddly, pumps it up a bit and reduces the solvent notes in the aromas. Maybe a sign that this was built for mixed drinks? Unfortunately since I only have a miniature I won't be able to find out.

With that said, for the price I would still pick Hardy VS over this.

Cognac Review: Louis Royer VSOP Force 53

Louis Royer Force 53 has a very particular place in my journey in the spirits world. I first heard about it through Cocktail Chronicles singing its praises in pre-Prohibition cocktails. From there it became something of a white whale, a spirit that I could occasionally glimpse on the occasional liquor store website, but never any that would ship to me.

Lo and behold, it randomly appeared in the OLCC system, even at MSRP. I was able to snag a bottle before they disappeared, many years after I had shifted my focus primarily from cocktails to whisky and other spirits.

Louis Royer VSOP Force 53

Nose: rather intense for a cognac, but also somewhat closed - moderately sweet grapes and apples, a thicker layer of fresh French oak, toffee, floral and citrus peel notes in the background. After adding a splash of water it become softer and richer, but almost all of the complexity is lost among a wave of caramel, with just some basic grape notes in the background.

Taste: sweet up front with thick grape, caramel, and oak notes, some citrus peel (mostly orange) in the background, shifting towards more tannic oak, vanilla, and a touch of chocolate around the middle, with some heat towards the back. After dilution it becomes thick and rich with almost none of the original heat, but most of the progression and development is lost in a wash of caramel and grape sweetness.

Finish: alcohol heat, moderately tannic oak, grape

This does what it says on the label - it takes a fairly standard cognac profile and amps it up with a higher bottling proof. Compared to the Rémy Martin from earlier this week, the next most noticeable difference is how much more oak influence is in this spirit.

It seems fairly clear to me that this is built primarily for cocktails. The features that make it somewhat brash and unrefined at full strength are the same ones that help it stand up against other formidable ingredients in a mixed drink.

In a Sidecar the nose is dominated by woody and floral notes from the cognac, with backing orange peel. The sip opens with strong cognac notes, with slowly growing orange notes into the middle, then more tart lemon near the back. The finish is long with tannic notes on top of lemon and bitter orange peel, plus a touch of vanilla.

Now this is more like it. While the orange liqueur isn't perfect here, the cognac absolutely shines. The higher proof really lets it punch through the other elements, keeping itself in the fore despite the strong character of the liqueur and lemon. While Force 53 isn't cheap, it is absolutely worth the extra expense for the way it can stand up to the strongest ingredients. This will take almost any drink calling for cognac to the next level as it has a lot of what makes bonded bourbons and ryes spirits that bartenders have been reaching for all through the cocktail renaissance.

Cognac Review: Rémy Martin VSOP Revisited

Looking back, Rémy Martin VSOP was the earliest cognac I looked at as a sipping spirit. While I haven't gained a ton of experience since then, it is the kind of thing that I'd like to return to to see how my own palate has changed.

As Josh aptly put it, this is the Johnnie Walker Black Label of cognacs. While Rémy is not on the same level as Hennessy, it sits squarely among the second tier of producers along with Courvoisier and Martell. This gives it the depth of stock needed to produce something with broad appeal and consistency.

Rémy Martin VSOP

Nose: big notes of apple and pear, grapefruit, lemon, and orange, mild grape, vanilla, and oak in the background, vague floral and vegetal notes, a little caramel. After dilution it becomes a little muted and less complex, but more vanilla and grape come out, plus something soapy.

Taste: sweet caramel with some grapefruit bitterness up front, a little oak and something floral starting around the middle, then even more mixed citrus going into the finish. After dilution the grapefruit retreats, it's a little sweeter and more oak-y with some berries around the middle, but the flavors become more muddled.

Finish: grapefruit peel with a citric tang, mild oak, caramel and grape roundness, long but not particularly strong

The nose is absolutely the winner here. If you're looking for a fruit-forward cognac, Rémy Martin has you covered. The turn towards more bittersweet notes in the palate and finish gives it something of a moreish quality if you alternate between sniffing and sipping. While not overly punchy at 40%, it still manages a respectable weight throughout. Overall this is heads and tails above the VS cognacs I tried a few weeks ago and might even edge out Pierre Ferrand Ambre in my estimation. Especially if you're just getting into the category, you could do far worse than this.

With all of that said, I still feel like this is a slightly over-engineered product. While technically flaw-less, I have to wonder what it would be like if the spirit was given a little more room to shine. While I do appreciate the lack of intrusive oak in this expression, which is a pleasant change of pace in a mass-market spirit, but it's lost something of the edge that I think it could have had. The Dudognon I tried a while might be close since it also has a strong fruit and citrus profile but isn't tampered with in the way this one is.

In a Sidecar the nose is pleasantly balanced between the cognac and orange liqueur, with some floral notes and just a bit of lemon and baking spices. The sip begins with moderate sweetness, once again balanced between the cognac and the orange liqueur, rounded with some nice thickness from the lemon juice around the middle, then a sharper and more tart fade out into the finish along with some less pleasant bitterness. The finish continues, with light bitterness.

While this is pleasant enough, Rémy doesn't have quite enough heft to stand up on its own. Different proportions might do the trick, but I wanted to be more consistent about my recipe when comparing different cognacs. However, I stand by my original assessment of it that this is a fine cognac for mixing, even if it's a bit on the expensive side.

Brandy Review: Cartron Marc de Bourgogne 15 Year Hors d'Age

Odds are if you've seen a Cartron product before, it was one of the liqueurs they produce rather than their grappa. What began as a wholesale lemonade business in the 19th century was transformed into a producer of liqueurs and marc de Bourgogne during the 20th century.

This marc is produced entirely from Burgundy Pinot Noir pomace, which is aged for 15 years before being bottled at 42% (according to their website), probably without coloring or filtration.

Thanks to Florin for this sample.

Cartron Marc de Bourgogne 15 Year Hors d'Age

Nose: the rougher grappa notes have been polished into something resembling a more refined version of the original grape pomace, there are leathery and gingerbread notes that I associate with Campbeltown malts, gently floral, savory/nutty, some more rounded grape and apple, hints of oak in the background. After adding a few drops of water it becomes even smoother, the leather and oak are emphasized, and it feels more mature if less complex.

Taste: fairly restrained fruity sweetness up front, quickly joined by sharper herbal notes of grappa - not much progression. After dilution the sweetness is increased but doesn't go over the top, there's some berries right behind, the grappa notes are more well-integrated and more herbal, but there's little additional complexity.

Finish: rather floral, well-integrated grappa notes, gentle grape sweetness, leather, rounded oak and chocolate bitterness

Compared to the Labet I reviewed earlier this week, this is a much more refined marc. Some of that may simply be additional time in the cask, but the spirit itself also seems more delicate. The pale color makes me think that these were relatively inactive casks, so any polishing has primarily been about time rather than oak. With that said, it's absolutely not lacking in intensity - the aromas practically jumping out of the glass even with a lower bottling proof than the Labet.

In terms of similarities, one thing I noticed is that once again most of the action is happening in the aromas and finish. The flavors, while not bad, were not especially engaging and didn't show any development. That forces this to be something of a more contemplative spirit, since getting the most out of it requires more focused attention and nosing. While I'm not sure it's what I want to be drinking every day, it is growing on me and I think I'll be searching for more marc de Bourgogne in future.

Brandy Review: Domaine Labet Marc du Jura 2003

This is a new one for me: grappa-style pomance brandy made in France. While it sounds like Domaine Labet's focus is primarily on their unfortified wines, they also produce marc du Jura and a sherry-style vin de voile. The marc is used to fortify the latter as well as sold by itself.

This particular bottle was distilled in 2003, aged for ten years in oak casks, then bottled at 45%, I presume without coloring or chill filtration.

Thanks to Florin for this sample.

Domaine Labet Marc du Jura 2003

Nose: big notes of brandy/madeira/raisins, a rougher herbal grappa edge, some cured fish underneath, buttery, sweet oak, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water it gets richer and rounder, some brine comes out, and some of the sweetness is replaced with a fermented savoriness.

Taste: rather hot and rough up front, some round sweetness shifting into sharper, more ethereal notes, then oak and earth going into the finish. After dilution it becomes a little softer and more rounded, the grappa notes are better integrated, the earthiness spreads out under everything, and some more overt young brandy notes come out at the back.

Finish: raisins, gentle herbal notes, grappa funk, fresh oak

I'm not sure this is something I want to drink every day, but there's no question that it is a quality spirit. The nose and finish are the most engaging parts for me, though water helped bring the flavors together.

If, as Florin argued, this is the Ledaig of grappa, I think it would have to be a Ledaig sherry cask. While the spirit is big and funky, the barrel has shifted it closer to a traditional brandy with some fortified wine notes to help soften it even more. And, as with Ledaig, it's not something that I would recommend right off the bat, but if you like strong, barely restrained flavors, this might be the kind of thing you want to seek out.

You can find a similar review from Bozzy, though I think he managed to extract some more complexity from it than I was able to.

Can the Compass Box Model Work With Other Spirits? Pt. II - the Economics of Blending

On top of the limitations of consumer knowledge, basic economics and the structure of liquor distribution also make it difficult for the Compass Box model to be applied to other spirits. On a very basic level, the bigger the blend the more risk a producer is taking. As noted by David Driscoll in the K&L Spirits Journal, moving a single cask of 100-500 bottles entails a fairly small amount of risk because there is a small amount of capital invested and the bottles can probably be moved sooner or later. In comparison a multi-cask blend of thousands of bottles involves both a larger capital investment and a greater risk that the product won't sell.

This goes double if you are targeting the enthusiast market, where novelty is often prized above everything else. A single cask generates excitement and FOMO to help move it out the door. A blend, especially in higher price brackets, stands primarily on its quality and repeat buyers. In the other direction, a product aimed at bartenders faces different constraints. First, it needs to be priced competitively so that their pour costs are acceptable. Second, supply needs to be sufficiently stable that they aren't taking a risk of having to reformulate their menu if it runs out. This creates a relatively difficult balance between more flavorful, rare, and expensive components to give the final product a unique profile and the more pedestrian components needed to keep the price point down. Some producers still succeed, such as Denizen or Cutty Sark (specifically their Prohibition release), but it takes skill and good relationships.

As I've noted before, Compass Box was created in no small part because John Glaser came from the brand side of Johnnie Walker, which gave him the relationships to source whiskies and lock in long term contracts. More recently the stake Bacardi has taken in the business creates another set of relationships allowing them to access whiskies that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. Without those long-term filling contracts, it is difficult to maintain the kind of stable core lineup that has become another hallmark of Compass Box in comparison to other outfits.

A new entrant today would be unlikely to have the same ability to get those kinds of filling contracts, even if supply is beginning to loosen up in comparison to a decade ago. Approaching the majors would more likely than not get someone laughed out of the room. Independent bottlers might be willing to let go of casks, especially those from second and third tier distilleries, but supply would likely be inconsistent.

This task is frequently even more challenging for other spirits. While bourbon distillers have traditionally sold bulk spirits and casks, supply has dried up for those without contracts locked in before the boom picked up. MGP potentially remains a source, but even their supplies are thinner than they once were. The world of cognac and armagnac is extremely complex, with an array of small producers, negociants in the middle, and the big houses pulling in the bulk of what is made. Some, such as PM Spirits have managed to accomplish this by building up relationships with those smaller producers, allowing them to release armagnacs aimed at the cocktail market.

On the flip side, rum is in the almost unique position of possessing international bulk buyers who are willing to sell smaller parcels. E&A Scheer (and their subsidiary the Main Rum Co) is the most prominent example, albeit one that is still largely unknown outside of rum geek circles. They have some features in common with larger Scottish independent bottlers or American non-distiller producers, though they are notably different in that they don't produce any products for themselves, preferring to supply other brands. This is the source for the aforementioned Denizen rums, which have been pretty open about how they're put together. This opens a real avenue for the kind of provenance-oriented blending done by Compass Box, but the limitations laid out in the first post are still going to be an impediment.

This brings in the last factor, distribution and sales. With hundreds of spirits currently competing for shelf space in liquor stores, you need to convince multiple layers of distributors and retailers that your product will sell. Some of this is short-circuited for in-house blends such as those produced by Total Wine or K&L, but that means that all of the risk is on a single sales outlet. When a producer wants to get their product onto the shelves of a wider range of retailers, scale creates a number of double binds. A small-scale or one-off release needs to justify its occupation of space that could otherwise be occupied by products that might have more consistent sales, while a larger scale product needs fairly rapid, concentrated sales in a small number of outlets or a large number of outlets with a smaller number of sales to be successful. This is especially tricky in the United States, where interstate shipping is becoming increasingly difficult, constraining the reach of each retailer.

To conclude, while we're starting to see some glimmers in other spirits such as rum and armagnac, there remain series problems both on the consumer and the producer side of the equation that make it difficult for new producers to make spirits in the mold of Compass Box. My hope is that changes on the consumer side will eventually drive changes on the producer side, but we will have to wait and see how that goes.

Can the Compass Box Model Work With Other Spirits? Pt. I - Distillery Profiles

As most of the revival of scotch whisky focused on the abundant single malts available in the 1990s and early-2000s, blends continued to be seen by many as bland and uninspired. John Glaser made it his mission to change that perception. Founded in 2000, Compass Box emerged from the roles he had played in the wine trade and at Diageo as the marketing director for Johnnie Walker. This gave him exposure the process of blending, a background in wood management, and the relationships needed to access casks. The company's first release, Hedonism, was an unheard of before luxury blended grain whisky. Subsequent blends and blended malts (whatever term they were known by) continued to expand the approach by creating new flavor profiles from distilleries that, if not named directly, were strongly hinted at.

I asked myself why this model hasn't been replicated in many other spirits, especially rum, from a question posed by Josh Miller on Twitter. While many other spirits have long traditions of producing multi-distillery blends - think of British navy rum or the large cognac houses - few have managed to make the process and results of blending exciting in the way Compass Box has done for scotch whisky blends.

Much of this comes out of the particular history of malt whisky production in Scotland - while it was blend-centric for much of its existence, independent bottlers and eventually the distilleries themselves made the profiles of individual distilleries popular in their own right. These created known quantities that John Glaser was able to riff on, twisting expectations in ways that made the results thrilling. Clynelish is at the core of many of their blends, ranging from the standard GKS Artist's Blend, Oak Cross, and Spice Tree releases, to one-offs like Eleuthera and the Lost Blend. Similarly Laphroaig and Caol Ila have been at the heart of many of their peated blends such as Peat Monster, Flaming Heart, and GKS Glasgow. These more well-known profiles are inflected with less well-known malts and grain whiskies from the likes of Teaninich, Dailuaine, Invergordon, Cameronbridge, Ledaig, or Ardmore.

For most of the spirits world these individual distillery profiles simply haven't penetrated the consumer consciousness in the same way. There are exceptions, such as the profiles of American bourbon and rye distillers, though their origins are often obscured. There is also growing awareness of Jamaican, Guyanese (well, really the sub-marques of DDL), and Martiniquaise r(h)um distilleries or, in a far more limited fashion, Armagnac farm distilleries.

The bottler who has most closely approached the Compass Box model is High West. Founded in 2006, it has taken a similar approach to blending, primarily bourbon or rye, to create new profiles. While this began in no small part as a way to produce cash flow while starting up a distillery from scratch, they have become famous for their blending skills as much as for their own production. A major difference is that High West, at least at the beginning, was significantly constrained in how much information they could divulge. The American whiskey market had no history of independent bottlers revealing their sources, preferring instead to cloak them in veils of fake history. This led to customers attempting to suss out sources from the reported mash bills and other clues. In a sense, High West performed almost the opposite function by making profiles such as those of LDI/MGP or Barton rye famous that had otherwise been completely unknown.

In the rum world what we have seen more of so far are blends from multiple named countries, rather than multiple named distilleries, such as Banks or Plantation. These approach the spirit of Compass Box, but also serve to flatten the diversity within individual countries. While the distilleries of Jamaica or Barbados may share similarities, much as the classic Scottish regions may once have, this doesn't have the same kind of granularity. As Linkwood is not Craigellachie or Glenfarclas, Hampden is not Longpond or Worthy Park. Clément is not Depaz or Neisson.

One release closer to the mark comes from the armagnac bottler L'Encantada. They have done a significant amount of work bringing attention to armagnac farm distilleries, creating excitement about their individual profiles, albeit through single casks. Their XO bottling was a blend of a handful of different single casks from distillers that they had previously bottled casks from. This closely approaches the Compass Box model of riffing on known quantities to create new and exciting profiles.

In many ways this is a chicken and egg problem - without widespread knowledge and appreciation of individual distillery profiles there is less drive for blenders to highlight them, but without engaged customers seeking to discover those individual profiles there is little incentive to put them front and center. We can see glimmers within other spirits categories that this may come about with time and increasingly curious customers, but it may be that relative ignorance will prevent blenders from operating in quite the same mold as Compass Box.

The Physics of Batch Column Stills and Bubble Plates

Until recently the graceful pot stills of Scotland were the most familiar images people had when you talk about distilling. Now batch column stills, also known as hybrid, reflux, or Lomond stills, common in the eau de vie and craft distilling industries, are far more recognizable than they used to be. These occupy an important middle ground between simple pot and more complex continuous stills, representing an evolution of the double retort pot still. In the simplest way of thinking about them, batch column stills are a way to create more refined spirits while using a smaller footprint by increasing the number of times that vapor is condensed back into liquid between the pot and the condenser.

New Deal Distillery's hybrid still

I've previous written about the physics of pot stills, which gives important background explaining concepts such as separation/resolution and reflux. Pot stills come in a bewildering array of shapes that are designed to influence reflux, but columns put all of that complexity inside far more plain-looking tubes. All of them operate by putting some kind of material in the path that the vapor travels from the pot to the condenser to create more opportunities for the vapor to condense and flow back towards the pot. The simplest method involves packing the column with small, high surface area items made of copper or a non-reactive material. In the same way that vapor condenses on the walls and flows back into the pot in a pot still, packing a column with material creates even more surface area for that process. Because the surface area is so high in a packed column, the vapor stream will also exchange material with the wetted surfaces in the column, further enriching the vapor stream with lower boiling constituents and depositing higher boiling constituents in the liquid. One of the significant challenges in setting up a packed column is ensuring that there is still enough void space for vapor and liquid to pass through the material without creating an unsafe amount of pressure. Another downside is that packed columns often have to be disassembled and emptied to clean the packing material thoroughly, which can be a significant challenge with larger columns. While these materials give a very high amount of reflux, care must be taken with the amount and type of packing material. A highly packed column may only be suitable for the production of neutral spirits because the product coming off the still will be almost flavorless. Using copper mesh also creates more opportunities for the metal to catalyze chemical reactions, which may be good for reducing sulfur compounds in the vapor, but can also lead to higher levels of acetaldehyde in general or the carcinogen urethane from fruit mashes with high amounts of cyanide in them.

The art of constructing hybrid stills is figuring out how to create a greater amount of reflux than a simple pot still while still producing flavorful spirits. This generally requires some kind of plate design, which has the advantages of letting distillers more precisely control their reflux ratio.

The simplest setup in this category is the sieve plate, which is just what it sounds like - a perforated plate, usually made from copper. The size of the plate and the ratio of holes to surface determine the amount of reflux each plate generates. Basic sieve plates have two significant advantages - first, they are simple to manufacture and thus cheap and second, they can be installed in the column on pivots that allow them to be turned 90º so that they create a minimal amount of reflux. This allows a distiller to tune the amount of reflux in the column for the type of spirit that they want to create, which is analogous to being able to change the shape and height of a pot still. This flexibility is especially important for craft distillers who want to produce multiple types of spirit on the same equipment. A larger multi-plate column can be fully engaged for making vodka, while most of the plates can be disengaged for more flavorful spirits like whiskey or brandy. Alternatively, creative plumbing can allow multiple columns to be used in series and selectively bypassed, so both a short and a taller column can be used for lighter spirits while the shorter column alone can be used for more flavorful spirits.

Sieve plates with sufficiently small holes operate with a layer of condensed liquid on top of them that is kept from falling back through the holes by vapor pressure. If the vapor pressure is not maintained at an adequate level liquid can 'weep' through the holes, reducing the efficiency of the plate. Some plate column stills have sufficiently high reflux ratios that liquid will collect on the plates passively, others require the plates to be preloaded with wash or water before the run, and many will use a dephlegmator, which is a partial condenser at the top of the column, to build up liquid on the plates. The plates will also need something called a downcomer (see diagram at right), which is a tube that allows liquid to drain from one plate to the plate below it. This pipe is built with a fixed or variable amount of height above the plate to ensure that the liquid level doesn't drop to zero. Similarly the lower end of each downcomer pipe is surrounded by a weir, which prevents vapor from traveling up the downcomer and bypassing the plates. The arrangement of the downcomers forces the liquid to flow across the plate from one side to the other, ensuring good contact between the vapor and the liquid as it proceeds back down to the pot. This setup means that vapor passing through each plate will exchange its heat with the liquid, depositing lower boiling compounds in the liquid phase and vaporizing higher boiling compounds to proceed upwards in the enriched vapor. In essence each plate becomes a small pot still, with the vaporization and condensation processes happening multiple times in miniature. This can be seen as an evolution of single- or double-retort pot stills (primarily found in rum distilleries) and thumpers (primarily used in bourbon distilleries) where the output of one pot still is passed through liquid in a subsequent pot still, then some of the liquid content of the pot is passed back to the previous still.

Bubble cap and valve plates are the next step up, meant to more effectively maintain the liquid level on the plate. While there is significant variation in design, all consist of small pipes with caps or valves on top of them. The liquid on the plate is prevented from passing through the pipe by the pressure on the cap or valve, while vapor can flow up and around to pass through into the liquid. This design allows the still to operate at a lower vapor flow rate than a simple sieve plate because the design reduces or eliminates the chance of weeping.

With all of this careful engineering, what's the point? There are any number of factors that can be pointed at, ranging from smaller footprints (no need for a huge pot still to produce light spirits when you can do the same thing with a more compact column), to efficiency (high reflux columns can be run harder than a pot still without loss of separation), to control and flexibility (pot stills only have two axes of control - heat input and condenser cooling water input). A classic example comes from the world of unaged fruit brandies or eau de vie, which were some of the first major users of batch column stills. This is because they found that the products from single pass distillation in batch columns were significantly different than double distillation in simple pots for certain types of fruit. For instance, one study found that while total ester levels were higher in pot distilled cider brandies, the levels of higher alcohols were elevated in the reflux column distillates.

The utility of batch column stills is even more clear for the craft distilling industry. They are faced by an array of challenges stemming from the huge amounts of capital that are needed to start a commercially viable distillery. Batch column stills present solutions to many of those problems. While they are more expensive than simple pot stills, they are far less expensive than continuous stills or multiple pot stills. They can be configured to produce an array of different spirits from the same system, allowing a new distillery to make lighter unaged spirits that can be sold immediately as well as heavier spirits that are designed for aging in casks. The increased efficiency and smaller footprint both help to save money and maximize the utilization of valuable space, especially for distilleries located in urban areas with higher real estate prices. Last, but not least, they allow the dynamics of distillation runs to be radically altered in comparison to pot stills.

Diagram of New Deal Distillery's hybrid still

The combination of a dephlegmator and a plate column allows for almost unprecedented control over how a distillation run proceeds. With a simple pot still, the only choices available are how to input heat into the pot, the rate that cooling water flows into the condenser, and where the cuts are made. While these tools are obviously sufficient to create some of the best spirits on earth, they require a lot of trial and error to perfect. With a batch column still equipped with a multi-plate column and a dephlegmator, a skilled operator can do something completely impossible with a simple pot still - establish, albeit temporarily, equilibrium. With 100% reflux the pot and column effectively become a closed system. The components of the heads will be compressed into the vapor phase near the top of the column, while the tails are all firmly in the pot. By reducing the flow of the dephlegmator a bit, the heads will leave the column in a comparatively small volume with very little alcohol. With further reduction in dephlemator flow the hearts will then come in behind at a constant ABV, unlike the steadily declining ABV of the hearts fraction from a pot still. Further tweaks will also compress the tails fraction so that very little of the fusel oils contaminate the hearts. This allows the creation of a very clean hearts fraction that can be bottled directly or that needs very little aging to round off its remaining rough edges.

An example of this flexibility is Westland Distillery in Seattle. Though they run a standard double distillation process for the majority of their spirit, their wash still is a batch column still. It is primarily used as a pot still with the dephlegmator turned off and open drains (see below) that empty the plates back into the pot, giving a greater amount of copper contact but with essentially pot still characteristics. Its full capacity is used to redistill the combined heads and tails from previous runs on the spirit still, with the dephlegmator fully engaged and the drains closed to keep the plates flooded to compresses the heads, then slowly reducing the cold water feed into the dephlegmator to extract a cleaner set of hearts, albeit with different character from their standard double distilled spirit.

Westland's wash still - see plate drains on the left side of column

There has been a long-running debate within the spirits community about whether batch column stills count as pot stills. On the one hand, they both operate in batch mode, which influences how the spirit is shaped through cuts. On the other hand, a fully equipped hybrid still with a column and dephlegmator can manipulate the process of distillation in ways that are simply impossible with pot stills, producing very different sorts of spirits. Being able to produce clean, high-proof spirit in a single pass is fundamentally different than simple pot stills, which is demonstrated by their use in the fruit brandy industry. At the same time, the line between the two is blurred by double retort pot stills, which are widely acknowledged to be pot stills, but share characteristics with batch column stills utilizing only a few cross-flow plates. While there is a hard break between batch columns and continuous stills, what the debate really comes down to is mystique - are people willing to pay more for pot still spirits because they expect a certain level of quality and character? I would argue that batch columns can produce spirits of equal quality, as long as the distiller is skilled enough to use their equipment to its maximum potential. If the reputation of batch columns has become tarnished, that is because of the people using them, not because of the technology itself.

Armagnac Review: Château de Pellehaut 28 Year 1989/2017 100% Ugni-Blanc

Not a whole lot to say about Pellehaut that I haven't already said. This is from an earlier era when they were primarily distilling ugni-blanc grapes as opposed to folle-blanche. This is another purchase from Astor Wines in NYC that is currently unavailable, though it seems like they've gotten multiple parcels of 1989 vintage casks with progressively more recent bottling dates, so something similar may show up sooner or later.

This brandy was distilled from 100% ugni-blanc grapes in 1989, filled in a new oak cask, then bottled at 49.9% without coloring, chill filtration, or additives.

Château de Pellehaut 28 Year 1989/2017 100% Ugni-Blanc

Nose: lots of spicy oak, cedar, caramel/maple syrup, dried fruits, floral vanilla, dark chocolate, a little savory. After adding a few drops of water it gets softer and sweeter with more balanced oak, the maple syrup turns into honey, and the savory notes integrates with the wood.

Taste: balanced grape and cask sweetness up front, moderately tannic and spicy oak with dried fruit in the background beginning in the middle, turning bittersweet at the back with a little heat. After dilution it becomes sweeter throughout, the oak takes a more balanced back seat, and the grape notes pop more at the back.

Finish: long but fairly simple - spicy oak tannins, background grape sweetness, and a savory fade out

There are a lot of similarities between this and the slightly younger folle-blanche cask I reviewed earlier. I think the balance it tipping towards the oak here, so it reads as a little less expressive to me. It really makes me wonder what the even older 1979 vintage bottle I have will be like, but we'll have to find out later.

Armagnac Review: Château de Pellehaut 23 Year 1994/2017 100% Folle-Blanche

There are not many big players in the American armagnac market, but Astor Wines in New York has put themselves at the center of it, alongside K&L Wines on the other coast. They regularly have a significant selection of brandies and bring in their own cask picks with some regularity. Unfortunately this particular cask has sold out, but there are always new picks available and their quality has reportedly been pretty consistent.

This brandy was distilled from 100% folle-blanche grapes in 1994, filled into a new oak cask, then bottled in 2017 at 48.2% without coloring, chill filtration, or additives.

Château de Pellehaut 23 Year 1994/2017 100% Folle-Blanche

Nose: strong oak and maple syrup, sweet grapes, honey, nougat, vanilla, nutmeg, allspice, fresh hay. After adding a few drops of water it becomes softer but more muddled, with less well-defined oak, but more unripe fruit/grape notes come out along with something dry and almost grainy

Taste: strong barrel and grape sweetness up front, backed by a significant amount of oak that becomes syrupy and more tannic with something savory in the background as it moves towards the back, and a bump of fruity esters and orange peel around the middle. After dilution the sweetness remains strong, the oak fades a bit and integrates into the whole, and the savory note at the back turns into a slightly acidic citrus/fruit note alongside gentler tannins.

Finish: rather long - oak tannins, syrupy grape sweetness, spicy/acidic prickles, a savory fade out

This one took me a while to wrap my head around it. It definitely requires some time in the glass to open up and I needed multiple tastings before I could work my way through the oak to get at the other components. With that said, I actually found this more in balance than some of the younger casks I tried, largely because the sweetness has expanded to a point where it is not overwhelmed by the more bitter tannins. My only complaint is that I wish the savory character I found in the finish had been more assertive as I feel like that would have made for a more interesting and complex experience, but it's a fairly small quibble. Water definitely helps to soften the oak, but you have to like the acidic fruit character that pops out. Overall this was a quality cask and a good pick.

Armagnac Review: Chateau de Pellehaut 17 Year 1996/2013 Folle-Blanche

A bit of trivia about Château de Pellehaut is that they used to produce entirely from ugni blanc grapes until 1996, but turned entirely to folle-blanche in 1997. This particular armagnac represents the brief transitional period while they were using both, but keeping the wines and distillates separate.

This brandy was distilled in 1996 from folle-blanche grapes, filled into new oak casks, then bottled in 2013 at 50.4% without coloring or chill filtration for K&L Wines.

Thanks to Florin for this sample.

Chateau de Pellehaut 17 Year 1996/2013 Folle-Blanche

Nose: slightly sharp oak comes first with richer grape notes in the background plus some vanilla bean ice cream. After adding a few drops of water it remains largely unchanged, but the vanilla is more prominent plus some pineapple/orange and cocoa notes come out

Taste: big oak and grape sweetness up front, a syrupy thickness around the middle, becomes more bitter/bittersweet with big oak and some creaminess towards the back. After dilution the sweetness is stronger up front, the oak turns into cedar in the middle, and the bitter turn at the back is more aggressive.

Finish: Fairly hot, balanced oak and grape, a little orange peel

This was kind of disappointing. I had read a lot of really positive reviews as this release helped cement Pellehaut's reputation in the U.S. Might just be that I sat on the sample for too long, but water at least got it closer to those expectations.

For a more favorable perspective, see MAO's review from the same bottle.

Armagnac Review: Château de Pellehaut 15 Year 2001/2016 Folle-Blanche for K&L Wines

Château de Pellehaut seems to be one of the more well-known armagnac houses, at least in the States. Located in the Ténarèze region in the middle of Armagnac, it follows the traditional practice of distilling their wines in a mobile still. The output is at a rather mild 54%, which helps to explain both their robust flavors and the often low-ish strength of their single casks. They fill all of their fresh spirit into 420 liter new oak casks.

This particular cask was distilled from wine made entire from folle-blanche grape in 2001, filled into a new oak cask, then bottled in 2016 at 48.6% without coloring or chill filtration for K&L Wines.

Thanks to Florin for this sample.

Chateau de Pellehaut 15 Year 2001/2016 Folle-Blanche for K&L

Nose: rich berry and juicy grape, wild honey, moderate but not overbearing oak, a little cedar, vanilla, citrus peel, baking spices, peanut brittle, a thread of wood smoke/incense. After adding a few drops of water it gets flatter and loses most of its intensity except for the oak, with the fruitier brandy notes becoming grain.

Taste: lots of grape, berry, and honey sweetness starting up front and continuing through, orange peel in the background, some heat and a savory note in the middle, fading into moderate oak and grape tannins. After dilution almost all of the heat disappears, the oak becomes less tannic, and some raisin (rather than grape) notes come out around the back, but the overall structure remains about the same.

Finish: balanced fruit and oak, tannins linger

As Bozzy noted, this is very much a bourbon, and even more specifically a wheated bourbon, drinker's armagnac. It doesn't have the spiciness that you would expect from rye bourbons, but the balance of sweetness, fruit, and oak are basically spot-on. I was a little disappointed by how much the aromas faded with water, but if you leave it alone they're all good.

At the $50 it went for retail, I think this pretty handily beats most comparably priced bourbons as long as your expectations are set for brandy rather than whiskey. It's not the most complex thing, but it definitely hits all the right notes.

Cognac Review: François Giboin 22 Year 1995/2017 Borderies

Giboin is a small cognac house with vines located in the Fins Bois and Bordaries regions. It has been family owned since 1830 and produces no more than 4000 cases a year. They use different amounts of lees (the solids remaining after fermentation) depending on how long the spirit will be aged for - younger cognacs are distilled without lees to give a cleaner product, while more lees are used for cognacs destined to age for longer periods of time to give a more complex product.

This particular cognac is a single cask distilled from 100% ugni-blanc grapes in 1995 and bottled in 2017 at 44% without coloring or chill filtration for Astor Wines.

François Giboin 22 Year 1995/2017 Borderies

Nose: marshmallow, vanilla, whipped cream, cotton candy, caramel, fresh and baked apples, banana, baking spices, uncooked pie crust, floral. After adding a few drops of water it shifts into a slightly drier mode with more oak, some citrus (lemon), and subdued sweet notes

Taste: rather sweet and thick up front, maple syrup, berries, grapes, floral background, mild oak underneath, not a lot of development. After dilution it becomes creamier with a little more oak

Finish: a little distant, cognac grape-iness, dried flowers, slightly drying oak

Much like the Dudognon, the bulk of the action here is in the aromas. If you're content to sit and sniff, this has quite a bit to offer. While a lot of the descriptors I gave are very sweet, I didn't find it cloying. The flavors are good if simple and this could be a pleasant sipper to enjoy with a book, but you would miss most of the action that way. Also like the Dudognon, the lack of adjustments is clear. While this is a sweeter cognac, it's cleaner than the thicker sweetness you're likely to find in more mainstream releases. Overall, while I think it could offer a bit more complexity for the money, this was a solid cask pick by Astor.

Cognac Review: Dudognon Vieille Reserve Grande Champagne

The Dudognon family have been growing grapes in the Grande Champagne region since 1776. While they sell some of their limited (~200 barrels per year) production to larger houses such as Hine and Remy Martin, they save some of the best to be labeled under their own name. The eau de vie is first distilled to 28%, then redistilled to ~70%. The new spirit is generally put in new oak barrels, then reracked into used casks for further maturation. Contrary to standard practice among cognac producers, their brandies have no additives.

I have seen claims that this cognac has an average age anywhere from 20 to 25 years. It is bottled at 40% without coloring, but possibly with chill filtration.

Dudognon Vieille Reserve Grande Champagne

Nose: dry cognac grape-iness, vanilla extract, maple syrup, honey, grapefruit peel, floral/herbal undertones, sunflower seed oil. After adding a few drops of water the sweeter elements come to the fore and a bit of gentle oak is added to the mix.

Taste: sweet grapes up front, apple/pear/grapefruit right behind, moderate tired oak from the middle back, berry overtones. After dilution it becomes noticeably sweeter up front, the oak becomes a bit brighter, there is a touch of tropical fruit in the background, and the berry notes are stronger.

Finish: light oak tannins, grapes, savory, more grapefruit, pear/tropical fruit, lingering dried flowers

This is something of an odd duck for me. The quality is clearly there, especially in the aromas, but it took a while for me to find this cognac very engaging. It's a little too dry without further dilution to be an easygoing sipper, but the flavors and finish don't quite have the complexity to reward studied engagement. While it's not flabby at 40%, I do wonder what the spirit would be like at a higher strength.

With all that said, I'm not sure if it really comes down to the spirit itself or my inability to tease apart its structure. I'm still relatively new to brandy as a category, so I'm not sure I have the experience to break it down in the way that I do with whisky.

I will give them a nod for the lack of boise and other 'adjustments' that are so common in the industry. It doesn't have the syrupy quality I've found in many other cognacs and that alone is a pleasant surprise. I'd like to try more from this producer, though I think I'll want to try before I buy next time.