Whisky Review: Hepburn's Choice Craigellachie 18 Year 1995/2014 for K&L

I reviewed this whisky once before from a sample and promptly vowed to get my hands on more of it. While that was a bit tricky due to K&L's inability to ship to Oregon (or anywhere outside California, these days), I was able to split a bottle and get a decent amount to drink.

This whisky was distilled in 1995, filled into a sherry butt, then bottled in 2014 at 54.3% for K&L Wines without coloring or chill filtration.

Hepburn's Choice Craigellachie 18 Year 1995/2014 for K&L

Nose: rich sherry, Starburst candies, vanilla, dry malt, leather, savory, mild sulphur, farm-y, American oak

Taste: sweet sherry with background malt and vanilla through the front and middle, floral top notes beginning in the middle, fading into a tangle of orange peel, gunpowder, mild oak tannins

Finish: lingering sulphur, nutty oak, sherry residue, dry malt

If I wasn't able to get ahold of a whole bottle, half will do. While my interest in sherry-driven whiskies has waxed and waned over time, this one really hits the mark for me. The dirty style isn't sexy in the same way as a cleaner Macallan or (modern) Glendronach, but it gives a counterpoint to the sherry that prevents it from becoming unidimensional. Even the sulfur has its place, though it reads as more earthy/manure than the meaty sulfur of Mortlach. If the Inchgower from K&L has some overlap with Tobermory, this leans more towards Ledaig, albeit without the peat. I will be very sad to see the end of this as I don't expect I'll be able to find anything comparable in the near future.

Diluted to 50%

Nose: dark, dank sherry, mild sulfurous funk, moderate oak, dried herbs, milk chocolate, caramel, citrus and tropical fruit, and a thread of wood smoke

Taste: sweet sherry up front that slips underneath the other flavors from the middle, a malty thickness throughout, muddled fruit and citrus starting in the middle, American oak and a bit of creamy vanilla near the back

Finish: thick, dark sherry, creamy malt, American oak, herbal

While missing a bit of complexity compared to the malt at full strength, this works really well. It has less heat, but still has good depth of flavor. It makes for a very nice middle ground between the two other strengths I tried. While I'm glad we got it at cask strength, this wouldn't have been bad as an Old Malt Cask bottling.

Diluted to 45%

Nose: pleasantly soft sulfurous sherry, ripe berries, herbal, nice oak, dark chocolate

Taste: bittersweet sherry up front, malty undertones, thicker around the middle with floral notes, fading into gentle oak tannins with some background sulfur

Finish: sherry residue, pleasant oak tannins, herbal/floral malt, gentle suflur

While it doesn't have the punch of the whisky at full strength, this is still very nice. I'd say this is comparable to something like G&M's Mortlach 15 Year. Just like with that, it becomes something of an easy-going malt, albeit with the controversial sulfurous notes. As I said above, I'm glad we got this at full strength, but it's a testament to the quality of the malt that it takes water so well.

It's become increasingly rare for me to find malts where I wish I had bought multiple bottles, but this is one of the few where I would love to have two or three more. While it's become common to bemoan the lack of complexity in 'modern' malt whiskies, this Craigellachie shows that good spirit is still being distilled and filled into quality sherry casks. As a bonus, this was far cheaper than a Mortlach of comparable provenance, highlighting the way that some distilleries manage to fly under the radar while others get all the attention. I'm hoping I'll be able to find something like it again, but we will have to wait and see.

Whisky Review: Hepburn's Choice Inchgower 20 Year 1995/2015 for K&L

Inchgower is one more of Diageo's almost countless distilleries that primarily produces for blends. While there have been a few official bottlings in the Flora & Fauna and Rare Malts lines, if you want to try Inchgower as a single malt you have to turn to independent bottlers.

This whisky was distilled in 1995, filled into a sherry butt, then bottled in 2015 for K&L Wines at 57.5% without coloring or chill filtration.

Hepburn's Choice Inchgower 20 Year 1995/2015 for K&L

Nose: richly sherried, sweet raisins, underlying malt, molasses, gentle coastal/herbal notes, cacao, dark but not strong oak, a touch of orange peel, buttery, peanuts, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water the buttery and herbal notes are amplified, the sherry is drier, and some wood spices and a little bit of balsamic vinegar come out.

Taste: a fair amount of alcohol heat throughout, moderate sweetness up front, thick layer of sherry on top of dry malt throughout, moderate oak and raspberries beginning in the middle, fresh/bitter herbs near the back. After dilution it becomes more bittersweet overall, with the sherry and oak integrating, but otherwise remaining largely unchanged in structure.

Finish: sherry residue, herbal, alcohol heat, dry malt

While there were a lot of things I enjoyed about this whisky, it's not a crowd-pleaser. This goes a way towards explaining why a 20 year old sherry cask whisky that was on sale for $100, an absolute steal on paper in this day and age, didn't sell out very quickly. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Tobermory, with its slightly bitter herbal quality and coastal notes, which also goes a way towards explaining why this one had comparatively limited appeal.

Diluted to 50%

Nose: dry sherry and malt, raspberry/strawberry overtones, gently herbal and pine-y, pink bubblegum, vanilla

Taste: sherried sweetness with some vanilla up front, quickly joined by a significant amount of oak tannins, followed by herbal flourishes near the back

Finish: sherry residue, thick oak tannins, pleasantly herbal

While not unpleasant, there was nothing about this strength that improved it over the undiluted whisky. With that said, it also didn't fall apart, which all too often happens with cask strength whiskies.

Diluted to 45%

Nose: thin and vague - indistinct sherry, malt, floral vanilla, and oak

Taste: extremely oaky and tannic throughout, sherry rides in the background but can't rescue it from the bitterness

Finish: very bitter - waves of oak tannins with sherry in the background and herbal hints

This is so far from the full strength malt that I have a feeling the sample may have gone bad. With time it got a bit more balanced and showed some of what I had found in the full strength malt, but it still felt very off. While it's possible that this was an artifact, I would be careful about how much water you add if you have a bottle of this whisky.

For some slightly different perspectives, be sure to check out MAO and Michael K's reviews.

Old Sherry vs. New

One of the long running debates within the whisky community is whether there was something about older sherry casks (roughly before 1980) that made them significantly better than what's available these days. Theories range from the use of transport casks, older oak being used to construct casks, higher quality sherry being used to season the wood, ex-bodega casks being used, or paxarette.

The debate has come to a higher pitch as more and more malts have entered the market with an increasing emphasis on their sherry character, often after less time in the casks. What kicked off with the rise of Aberlour A'Bunadh has crested in Kavalan's stratospherically expensive sherry cask malts and shows no sign of abating.

While my sample size will not be large enough for a real data set, over the next couple of weeks I'm going to compare and contrast two new school sherry cask malts from Craigellachie and Inchgower to a couple of sherry cask malts from Bruichladdich and Glen Keith from the supposed 'good old days' of the 60s and 70s. From that phrasing you can already glean that I already have some feelings on the subject, but I'm hoping that I can get some other perspectives since my own experiences have been limited.

Whisky Review: The First Editions Bunnahabhain 22 Year 1989/2012

One of the enduring mysteries when it comes to IB Bunnahabhains is why there are so many casks from 1989 and why all of them seem to have such a low proof. Reddit user Rudd1983 ran an analysis of data from WhiskyBase and found that 1989 is a serious statistical anomaly with almost 5% lower average bottling strength than surrounding years, despite similar average ages. They also pinged the distillery and determined that the filling strength that year was still the common 63.5%, eliminating one possible explanation.

This whisky was distilled in 1989, filled into what I assume was a refill hogshead, then bottled in 2012 at 45.9% without coloring or chill filtration.

The First Editions Bunnahabhain 22 Year 1989/2012 Cask ES010/10

Nose: classic bourbon cask Bunnahabhain - balanced clean malt, caramel oak, fresh vanilla, coastal influence, vague fruitiness, gently floral, lightly herbal. After adding a few drops of water it becomes softer and sweeter, but it loses some intensity.

Taste: fairly sweet up front with a good mix of malt and cask, slightly sour and gently oak-y with a bit of vague fruit from the middle back, creamy vanilla in the background throughout. After dilution it retains roughly the same structure, but the oak is a little softer and there is a pop of fruit around the middle.

Finish: a little cask and malt, gently bitter, then a long savory herbal/coastal fade out with a touch of cacao. After dilution the oak shifts up and the herbal notes fade.

While there's nothing about this cask that jumps out and makes it exciting, it's also a solid example of what time and wood can do for good spirit.  When I first opened the bottle it had some of the cardboard character that I've often found with First Editions releases, but over time it has settled down into something more clearly Bunnahabhain. While it's never going to reach the heights of their sherry cask releases, it's totally respectable and didn't cost me an arm and a leg.

With that said, the palate is something of a let-down after the moderate complexity of the nose and finish, but that can be improved with a little water or easily tweaked with a bit of blending  - sherried Craigellachie or Mortlach would work great or alternatively a bit of Linkwood could boost the floral notes. There are definite similarities to the MoM Bunnahabhain of the same vintage I tried a number of years ago, though that one had a bit more going on. Unfortunately I didn't grab a bottle of that one since I wasn't as much of a fan of this style at the time.

Whisky Review: Provenance Mannochmore 14 Year 1999/2013

Mannochmore is another one of Diageo's semi-anonymous distilleries, little known except through its Flora & Fauna release and independent bottlers. The exception comes in the form of Loch Dhu, which is rightly infamous as some of the worst whisky ever released upon the world.

This whisky was distilled in 1999, filled into what I assume was a refill ex-bourbon hogshead, then bottled in 2013 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

I purchased this sample from Dramtime, who have (at the time of writing) both samples and full bottles.

Provenance Mannochmore 14 Year 1999/2013 Cask #9766

Nose: pleasantly malty with honey, floral mint, licorice, lemon/orange peel, and just a touch of peat. After adding a few drops of water the aromas almost completely shut down with only some dry malt and a bit of peat left.

Taste: lots of syrupy malty sweetness up front, becomes bittersweet around the middle with floral, herbal, and very light but perceptible peat, almost no oak at all. After dilution the sweetness is initially replaced by a sort of malty tartness and a bit of oak comes out at the back.

Finish: gentle malt sweetness, long lasting herbal notes, very light oak providing some roundness

This is a pretty generic Speyside malt from an Nth fill ex-bourbon cask. Nothing to write home about, but perfectly serviceable. Unless you add water, in which case it all falls apart. I wish the peat had been a little more aggressive because that could have added some interest, but as is you have to go hunting to find it. Overall I would say this is a fine cask that could provide a solid base for further blending, but it's nothing I need to have more of.

Whisky Review: Provenance Dailuaine 10 Year 2004/2014

Dailuaine is a distillery that I've appreciated ever since trying it as part of Compass Box's Oak Cross blended malt. Since it's a work horse distillery for Diageo, we don't see too much of it in official single malt form. That makes the IBs we do see a little more exciting.

This whisky was distilled in 2004, filled into a sherry butt, then bottled in 2014 at 46% without coloring or chill filtration.

I purchased this sample from Dramtime, who no longer have it as a sample but do have full bottles.

Provenance Dailuaine 10 Year 2004/2014 Cask #10551

Nose: classic sherry cask notes of stewed fruit, a little dank, a pleasant level of oak, sweet malt and floral notes, raspberries. After adding a few drops of water it becomes maltier, more floral, and more balanced,

Taste: fairly hot throughout, malt and sherry sweet up front, solid sherry influence continuing, some mixed fruit around the middle, then a clean fade into the finish with very little oak. After dilution most of the heat diminishes, it becomes much sweeter up front, some of the sherry turns into dark chocolate, and some nice oak emerges at the back.

Finish: sherry residue, sweet malt

Much like the Prime Malt Dailuaine I tried, this isn't a world-beater but it is a solid whisky at a reasonable price. I'm not getting as much complexity out of it, which is a shame since I think the basic Dailuaine profile with a little sherry could be great. With that said, if I wasn't already drowning in whisky I would seriously think about getting a bottle. It's a nice malt and I think it could be even better blended with other whiskies.

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.