Whiskey #3 - Green Spot & Redbreast 12

Bottle #1 - Green Spot
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (estimated 60% malted barley, 40% un-malted barley)
Strength: 40.0% ABV (90.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (most likely artificially colored)
Filtration: Unknown (most likely chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown (estimated 7-10 years in 75% used bourbon barrels and 25% Oloroso sherry casks)
Price: $57.99 (Total Wine)

Bottle #2 - Redbreast 12 Year
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (estimated 50% malted barley, 50% un-malted barley)
Strength: 40.0% ABV (90.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (most likely artificially colored)
Filtration: Unknown (most likely chill filtered)
Maturation: 12 years in unknown proportion of used bourbon and Oloroso sherry casks
Price: $69.99 (Total Wine)

Overview

Happy belated St. Patrick's Day!

As cliched as it is, I could not resist sending Irish whiskey for March's sample. Because I have never tried Irish Whiskey, I selfishly chose two different examples that were consistently recommended by the various whiskey blogs I frequent. Both of these whiskeys are produced by Irish Distillers (which is owned by Pernod Ricard) and distilled at their New Midleton Distillery on Ireland's south coast.

So what makes a whiskey an Irish Whiskey? There are four main types of Irish Whiskey - Malt, Pot Still, Grain, and Blended; what delineates each of the four can be found here. Month 3's samples are from the Pot Still variant and have the further distinction of being Single Pot Still as they were produced entirely at one distillery.

By law, a Pot Still whiskey must be entirely distilled in a traditional pot still (as opposed to a column still) and can be produced from a mash bill containing up to 5% of cereal grains other than barley. Both Green Spot and Red Breast however use 100% malted and un-malted barley. The un-malted barley is the first of two characteristics that separate Irish Whiskey from its Scottish counterpart. The second is Irish Whiskey is traditionally triple distilled whereas Scotch is almost always double distilled (three runs through a still vs two). Generally speaking, that extra pass through the still robs the distillate of some flavor but produces a 'smoother' tasting final product than a double-distilled whiskey.

So what about this un-malted barley business, what is that all about? Well since we are on the cusp of our beloved Federal Income Tax Day, here is rebellious reason to sip some Irish Whiskey in April - it represents a cheeky tax loophole exploited by Irish distillers in the 19th century.

Before we get to the loophole, a bit of backstory on barley. Virtually every whiskey made contains some percentage of malted barley. Why? Because barley contains a critical enzyme called amylase and it's amylase that converts the starches of the grains into fermentable sugars. There is an asterisk though - to get access to the barley's amylase, you must expose it by partially germinating the barley but halting germination before all the grain's resources are consumed by the germination process. This partial germination process is called 'malting'.

Back to the loophole - overwhelmingly, the only reason one would malt barley is to make booze. As such, in the late 1800s the British Government, who already taxed whiskey, decided to impose additional taxes on malted barley.

Maybe my dad's 'they get you coming and going' tirades were right all along...

Anyway, distillers in Ireland decided to revolt through experimentation - replace some of the taxed malted barley in their mash bills with untaxed un-malted barley. Yes, there would be a loss in distilled output as there would be less alcohol to distill in each run, but they quickly determined the loss in output was dwarfed by the tax savings. A pleasant side effect was the grassy note the un-malted barley infused into the finished product's flavor. And like that, Irish Whiskey was born.

So popular proved the delivered flavor of Irish Whiskey, that when tax laws were revised through the years removing the extra taxation on malted barley, producers did not change back to 100% malted barley in production. And so it is that today we can sip a spirit born as a middle-finger to the tax man. I can think of no finer legacy to the noble distillers of 19th century Ireland. Erin go Bragh.

Tasting Notes

Green Spot Unofficial Tasting Notes

Redbreast 12 Tasting Notes

Group Impressions

A huge thank you to all for pulling double duty in this month's tastings. Personally, I love the idea of A/B type tastings. Aspects of a particular whiskey that normally would go unnoticed can jump out when sampled alongside a second (or third, or fourth) whiskey.

Reading through each impression, clear trends emerged. Bottle #2 - Redbreast 12 year - seems to be the crowd favorite here. In terms of 'street-cred', Redbreast 12 is the big dog and Green Spot is the underdog. As one of the contributors accurately stated, there was nothing wrong with Green Spot, it would have been completely enjoyable if served alone. A second trend of tremendous interest was numerous impressions feeling Redbreast 12 was actually a bourbon, something that I detected as well. Certainly this speaks to the barrels used to mature Redbreast.

Thanks again to all - Month Four is up next!

Waldo Norris

Bottle #1 and Bottle #2 almost looked identical by appearance, had similar legs and had very similar flavor compounds. A light Vanilla, with a good oak on it.  

When tasting Bottle #1, I did notice a stronger alcohol content, as it really give me a nice burn in the throat when it was taken neat. Of course, as most do, it mellowed out with a few drops of water.  I tried to pick up on any new flavors, and while the mouth feel was nice, vanilla and oak is all I had. 

Bottle #2, smelled much different from the bottle, almost sweet, but certainly didn't carry as strong of an alcohol sniff or taste to it. When I first smelled the bottle (#2) I really thought you were going to have us compare a bourbon to a scotch, but after tasting them both, I really can't imagine that these are anything but 2 very similar regions in Scotland, perhaps brother's that live on a different side of the same grassy hill. 

Perhaps due to the date and positing of this write-up we will get a good laugh out of some April Fools joke.  

Should I be forced to prefer one over the other, I wanted to say that Bottle #1 was slightly nicer for me. I do like the alcohol, as it was present but it wasn't overwhelming. I also wanted to say that the Vanilla was a little stronger as well.

Zeus

Appearance:

#1 has that amberish color all whiskeys look like to me. Looking at the chart, I'd put this as medium amber. Slightly lighter Color then #2. I put #2 as a dark amber.

Smell:

#1 has a bite to the smell. That made me think it has a high proof. Maybe a scotch? #2 does not have as much aroma as #1. In fact, it's seems incredibly weak in comparison. I had to really breath it in to get any sense of it. Woody smell is what I picked up. Not smoky. I suspect #2 is a bourbon.

Taste:

Took it neat initially. #1 has a nice initial taste, scotch seems most likely. Very smooth. Not as high proof as I thought based in the smell. Added some rocks, the flavor was washed out a lot, I don't think this would play well in a mixed drink. #2 had some big surprises for me in the flavor. Somewhat fruity initial taste. Really confused now what this is, #2 could still be a bourbon but it's not screaming that.

Finish: 

#1 has a slight burn in the finish. Apricots come to mind. Lingers for 10-15 seconds, which I enjoy a lot. #2's after taste dissipates far faster than #1. Maybe a caramel or brown sugar after taste, but it fades really quick. 

General Thoughts

#1's taste is nice. I think I enjoyed the after taste more than when it was lingering in my mouth. #2 goes down a lot easier than #1. I could destroy a bottle of #2 pretty quick. I dislike how #2's after taste dissipates so fast.

#1 I got pegged as a scotch with moderate confidence. #2 I think is a bourbon with weaker confidence. I like how the flavors contrasted with each other in comparison. I'm not sure I would think of either the same way without that contrast. I like #1's long after taste. #2 tasted better but was too short lived to really savor it. If I had to buy one I would go with #2. Might make for an excellent old fashioned.

Carol Baldwin

Appearance:

#1, dark golden color. #2, amber.

Smell: 

#1, warm and mellow, slight vanilla notes. #2, sharp with caramel and wood notes.

Taste:

#1, First impression, this is a scotch. The first sip had a bite; quite astringent and bitter. Subsequent sips were more assertive and astringent, with a bitter aftertaste. The addition of ice lessened the sharpness, however the flavor profile remained much the same.

#2, I think this one is a scotch as well. Sharp and astringent at first sip. Definitely more complex and rich in flavor than #1, however; I detected some wood and a light hint of peat. Adding ice allowed the peat and wood flavors to intensify, and mellowed the astringency a bit.

Finish:

#1. Sharp and astringent. Adding ice lessened the sharpness a bit, although the finish remained astringent. 

#2. Bitter finish when sipped straight. Adding a little ice mellowed the flavors and smoothed the finish.

General Thoughts:

#1 was sharp and bitter, even with the addition of ice. In my opinion this whiskey may be best used in a mixed drink, as I found it to be sharp and astringent on its own with not much complexity of flavor. #2 however, did improve with addition of ice and a nice complexity of flavors came out. I preferred #2 when comparing these two.

Apollo

Smell:

1: I couldn't smell much beyond the alcohol. Maybe a slight wood smell.

2: This one had a rich aroma. I could smell a bit of caramel along with wood and the alcohol. There were also a variety of other smells that I couldn't really identify.

Comparison: The second one had a much more interesting smell. It had a complex aroma that seemed to incorporate many different smells. The first one didn’t really smell like much to me.

Appearance:

1: It had a light amber color and long lasting legs.

2: It had a light amber color and long lasting legs.

Comparison: The appearance of these two was very similar. Both the color and the legs were almost identical.

Taste:

1: After the first ounce I couldn’t really pick out any flavors. It wasn’t bad, fairly smooth, probably an 80 proof scotch if I had to guess. But as far as interesting flavors, I wasn’t getting much. I dropped an ice cube in for the second ounce and that brought out the flavor a little more, but still nothing I could really identify.

2: This one had an interesting flavor. It was smooth and I could taste caramel and wood. It was slightly sweet which makes me think it might be a bourbon, but I’m not sure. It seemed like something around 80 proof to me.

Comparison: I liked the taste of the second one better. It seemed to have a richer blend of flavors that lasted longer than the first one. The first one was ok, but I definitely preferred the second.

Finish:

1: It didn't have a lot of lingering flavor. There was some tongue tingle that lasted for a few seconds.

2: This one had a long lasting flavor that evolved for several seconds after swallowing.

Comparison: The second one had a much better finish thanks to the flavors that reveal themselves on your tongue as the seconds pass.

Summary:

When I first heard that we were getting two different samples this month, my first thought was that it would be two different ages of the same whiskey, since I always thought that would be an interesting comparison. That being said, I don’t think that’s what we have here, unless the aging process makes a much bigger difference than I realized. I’m not entirely sure, but I think we may have one bourbon and one scotch (I’ll supply my own one beer, heheh). Outside of the appearance, which was identical to my eye, these were very different samples.

Overall, for me, the second one was quite a bit better than first. It's not that the first one was bad or anything, it's just that they were very different and the second seemed to have a lot more character. I would have enjoyed the first one just fine if I hadn't tasted the second one right afterwards.

Keoki

This was an interesting tasting. We had two samples, and upon visual only, they looked exactly the same. I honestly thought I was getting the same drink. Both were a nice light gold color. I thought it may be different batches, or maybe bought at different times/states.

However, upon tasting them, they were vastly different.

Number one tasted very balanced to me. Nothing really stood out; it was almost as if the distiller was trying to make a non-offensive batch. This isn't necessarily a bad thing---some people like that. However, it isn't something I look for in Scotch. I'd rather have something poke my tastebuds to let me know it's there.

Number two tasted entirely different. There was a balance, but there was also some punch to this one. I'm wondering if it is an older version of the first batch --- or maybe aged in a different type of barrel. I can't really describe the taste well --- it wasn't fruity or peaty. It just had a certain flavor profile that is better for sipping (both were tasted neat).

Now, I don't consider myself even proficient at tasting scotch. However, if you do taste enough of them, you can start to taste the differences in the styles. For instance, my wife would say that they taste the same --- both bad! However, just like someone who is into another type of drink --- there are vast differences in Scotches that seemingly look the same.

So, my money would go to #2. Hope it's not too expensive.

Admiral Hawkes
When this month’s assignment and samples came down, I instantly thought this has to be a throw-down between two rival whiskeys. Our fearless leader would no doubt want to have us weigh in on a long and glorious debate. I had my money on Jameson vs Bushmills.  Nothing I tasted took me off this track. I used a bottle of Jameson Black Barrel as a reference point to make sure I wasn’t’t crazy.  Pretty sure these two are as Irish as Conan O’Brien. And yeah, I know Conan is from outside of Boston, not Dublin.

I tasted these whiskeys three times… each time neat, and not always in the same order. Number 1 had a nose reminiscent of a Scotch, some decent heat both on the nose and in the mouth, with a slickness and a hint of caramel apple that was really pleasant. Liked it.

Number 2 had a bit less heat on the nose and in the mouth… actually had a silkier mouth feel that was more “Irish” to me and it flavor notes were stronger on the caramel with perhaps a hint of vanilla. It was smooth, and I enjoyed it more.

I vote for number 2. Though I am somewhat of a Jameson loyalist, I am guessing that it is actually Bushmills, since I am all-in on my Irish showdown theory.

Slainte!

Michael Doheny

Look at me, I'm drinkin' again.

House rules are as follows, first sample, straight. Second sample, splash of water to keep you honest, and lastly on the rocks, as God intended. 

I received my monthly stipend in the usual way, except I knew there was an extra treasure inside, like when you got an extra tattoo in your Cracker Jack box. I shut my eyes to realize this grand surprise is true, a second vial of mystery sample was inside.

I elected to do a side by side comparison of the drinks, assuming that was our benefactor’s intent. But you know what they say when you assume, you make make an ass of you and me. I apologize for the salty language ladies and gentlemen, let’s keep this party polite and get back to this thing.

Color was similar enough they should be on the same paint sample card. A slightly sunburnt yellow, it would have a fancy name, like Bumblebee. I cracked the seals and tried to catch a whiff, but there wasn’t much there in either sample. 3-1 had a little honey with a smile, but maybe that was left over from the bumblebee. 3-2, I thought I caught a caramel, but it didn’t stick around long. Their legs swirled like tsunamis, bold and with sudden velocity.

3-1 had a low burn, mild by any standard. There were definite hints of botanical origins layered in the liquid. Further tasting stuck me like old cinnamon that has turned dark and moist in the forgotten corner of the spice cabinet. It stayed balanced and smooth throughout, with a vein of young wood, hidden in the last gasps of the finish. 

3-2 had bloomed somewhat since I first put my nose to it. There was a sticky sweet scent to the drink, it wasn’t heavy, like those fancy sugar cocktails the dames get; no, this was something different. It was a wisp of recollection of happy yesteryears on the air. The taste had an underpinning of vanilla, with a gain mixed in. Wheat, maybe. Despite the subtle flavoring, it tasted youthful and fresh, like a hot towel and a shave at the barbers. Except here, I left with a taste of a toffey on my lips and humming on the gums. The last swig was different, it had almost an apple ginger sas and smacked my mouth with a light, savory kiss, and was gone.

I bled the water into each of the samples, and the bumble bee formidably kept it’s color, but the legs kicked with the speed of a Moulin Rouge show girl. There was a soft apricot hint to the smell of 3-1, where 3-2 had nothing left to the nose. 

Tasting 3-1 was like drinking a muted caramel ice cream. Sweet and soft flavors, with a smooth finish. No burn at all. Really enjoyed this tasting and it is among my few regrets that it was over so soon.

It isn’t fair to say I tasted the 3-2 sample with water. I imbibed the concoction, and there was nothing. I rolled the sample around my mouth, chewed it in an effort to unlock something, but there was nothing hiding there. 

3-2 and 3-1 reacted like opposite sides of Berlin with ice being the wall between them. An ice wall, can you imagine such a thing? 3-1 was like a young Jack Kennedy, limber and light. A controlled temper of a warmth without ignition. It had hints of butter laced with flecks of pepper. Meanwhile Khrushchev on the 3-2 side was made indignant by the ice. A roiled burn defused and the water overwhelmed it. There was a sweetness hidden beneath the ice, like rich earth from the siberian tundra.

Both were low ABV, and are siblings of some kind. Their similarities were too close for them to be distant. I don’t think they are bourbons, at least they didn’t match when I did a follow-up tasting with Evan Williams, though my guess is I’m getting fooled by the ABV. I would wager a hard 8 at a craps table that 3-1 is from a non-distiller producers label and the 3-2 is from the label of the suspected bottler.

Either way, both were a delight and I look forward to entertaining both again.

Fr. Paddy McGuiness
Bottle #1
Smell
Definite barley on the nose. Gentle, no sharpness/harshness. There is a fresh cut grass aspect to the smell as well. A bit of lemon candy and at times tropical fruit like mango and guava. Bit of rubbing alcohol. Very subtle nose, it does not overpower at all.

Taste
Wow, surprisingly a bit harsher than I was expecting based off the smell. A bit more ‘raw’ or ‘sharp’ alcohol than flavor, perhaps this is a bit young or maybe the maturation barrels are not overly fresh? A bit of grass on the taste, definitely barley, but not much barley sweetness. In fact, I would say there is a tinge of bitterness in the mid to late taste. This definitely does not taste like a Scottish Single Malt.

Finish
Short to medium finish. No particular flavors stand out to me. The bitterness persists on the finish.

Bottle #2
Smell
Oh an interesting smell. Definitely barley there but something else too. Vanilla, cherry. Gentle, no sharpness/harshness. This does have a bourbon vibe to it but the hit of barley betrays its nod to American whiskey.

Taste
Grass, mild barley sweetness. Some fruit, no harshness, the punch of bottle #1 is not here. This alcohol is smoother and less prickly. Vanilla, perhaps a bit of fruit. Some baking spice.

Finish
Medium length. Pleasant warm finish.

Overall Comparison
Bottle #2 all day for me. I would definitely procure a bottle. I have read they release a cask strength version of this each year that is entirely untouched - no chill filtration, no artifical coloring, and best of all, 50+% ABV. I am betting that a cask strength version of #2 is the Spinal Tap 11 of the normal bottling sampled here.