Tuesday, April 28, 2020

You Sit on a Throne of Lies! ... possibly



What you see above; what I have before me, are two potential imposters. I cannot forecast to you the true identity of either - they are each a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. The key is the present day's sheer hysteria over Japanese whisky.

Lionized in pop culture by Bill Murray's Lost in Translation character - "for relaxing times, make it Suntory time". Awarded World Whisky of the Year in Jim Murray's 2015 Whisky Bible (specifically the Yamazaki Single Malt Sherry Cask 2013). Japanese whisky has transcended being a simple beverage of leisure to become both a status symbol and for some examples, a commodity whose valuation on the secondary market easily exceeds its retail price.

The two whiskies above are not such examples. In fact, thanks to the scandalously loose labeling laws for Japanese whisky, there is a chance neither were distilled in Japan proper. Incredibly, a producer can import whisky from any country, simply re-bottle it in Japan, and label it legally as 'Japanese Whisky'.

So what do we have on our hands and why in the world would I fiscally support what amounts to legal loophole shenanigans? Well, before we dive into the two whiskies, let's discuss one common trait that both proudly proclaim on their label - the use of Japanese mizunara during maturation.

Mizunara is a species of oak native to Japan that has gained a near-mythical reputation for its ability to impart a totally unique set of flavors into a whisky during maturation. Sandalwood, incense, tea, pear, and coconut are hallmarks of a mizunara matured whisky. Unfortunately, mizunara is far from an ideal wood to make barrels from due to three main problems - first, the tree requires an average of 200 years before it is mature enough to fell (as opposed to ~80 years American oak requires). Second, the tree itself rarely grows straight, instead taking on a beautifully random growth pattern reminiscent of a meticulously trimmed bonsai tree. Lastly, the oak's moisture content and porousness are significantly higher than American or French oak resulting in staves that are harder to shape and far more prone to leakage once formed into a barrel. All of this translates to an oak variety that is not that prevalent in whisky maturation warehouses around the world. Those that have used mizunara - Suntory, Bowmore, Macallan to name a few - have done so with great success, albeit it in extremely small and extremely expensive releases. Which brings me back to the two whiskies sitting before me. Both claim to use Mizunara oak - one with no indication of duration in mizunara and the other labeled as 'Mizunara Oak Finish'. Let's dive in and break each down.

First up, on the left, is Kaiyo Cask Strength whisky. Kaiyo's label offers very little insight into the whisky's provenance - Japanese Mizunara Oak, Un-Chill Filtered, and 53% ABV. Purchase price: $89.99 at my local Total Wine. No mention of a distillery, no mention of a country of production, not even a mention of the grain used to make the whisky. Some internet sleuthing yields more information, but be warned, there is no way to cross-check this information on Kaiyo's website.

The most useful backstory was provided by K&L Spirit's blog: https://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2017/10/24/introducing-kaiyo.html.

According to K&L, Kaiyo acquired barrels of new-make 100% malted barley whisky from a Japanese distillery that were 'teaspooned'. Teaspooned barrels are barrels that the producing distillery literally adds a teaspoon of another distillery's whisky to thereby preventing the purchaser from labeling the resulting whisky as a single malt from a specific distillery. K&L also claims the folks at Kaiyo transfer their new-make Japanese whisky into mizunara oak barrels that were produced at the Ariake cooperage in Japan. Here is where K&L's specifics begin to falter, there is no mention of how long the whisky spends in the mizunara barrels, but there is a rather intriguing plot twist - all the barrels are aged partially at sea in cargo ships (precisely the technique used in Jefferson's Ocean Series). As I said, there is no way to cross-check any of this information on Kaiyo's website so it's up to the individual to determine its merit. Personally, I was willing to accept this information as true in good-faith, but I also understand why others would remain justifiably unconvinced. Assuming K&L's information to be true, I could not resist the urge to taste a Japanese whisky matured in mizunara oak, even betraying my rules on avoiding whiskies whose labels provide more mystery than provenance.

The second whisky is the Shin. In contrast to the Kaiyo, the Shin's label discloses far more information - malt whisky, mizunara oak finish, 15 years old, natural color, un-chill filtered, 48% ABV, and 'Product of Japan'. Purchase price: $99.99 at my local Total Wine. On paper, the Shin runs circles around Kaiyo, but remember, a producer can import whisky from any country, re-bottle it in Japan, and label it legally as a product of Japan. Though I cannot prove it, I suspect that is precisely what has happened with the Shin. For starters, the two major Japanese whisky distillers - Suntory and Nikka - have almost completely eliminated age-stated malt whiskies from their portfolios due to a crushing shortage in their respective whisky stocks. How probable is it that a new producer in Japan could somehow get their hands on barrels of 15-year old Japanese whisky? Highly unlikely. Even if they could somehow get 15-year old Japanese whisky, the asking price would be much higher than $100. Offering a pure guess, I believe what is sitting in this bottle was distilled and matured in Scotland. From there, the whisky was shipped to Japan and transferred into mizunara oak barrels for period of time (hence the label's 'mizunara oak finish') before finally being bottled for retail. Legal labeling sleight-of-hand aside, the mystery whisky does indeed carry some nice production pedigree, which is precisely why I decided to purchase - it is a 15-year old malt, natural color, un-chill filtered, finished in a very interesting variety of oak and bottled at 48%. If this was a bottle on offer from say a Balvenie or a Macallan, the asking price would easily be in the $100 to $150 range, so I decided to take a chance.

If my hunch about the Shin is correct, we find ourselves in the bizarre situation where the whisky that discloses more information on its label is actually less authentic than what it implies to be! It could be that the Kaiyo, which doesn't even proclaim to be a product of Japan, is in fact actual Japanese whisky whereas the Shin, that proudly proclaims to be a 'Product of Japan', is in fact the imposter. Welcome to the dangers of loose labeling laws and regulations.

Oh well, enough semantics, how do these whiskies actually taste?

Kaiyo
Nose - sweet, cinnamon, spice, orange marmalade, light sandalwood, light coconut
Taste - sweet, cinnamon, orange, Grand Marnier-esque, gentle sandalwood
Finish - medium length, light oak, orange, cinnamon, incense
Overall:
Each aspect of this whisky was remarkably similar throughout the tasting experience. The smell matched the taste matched the finish. Orange is the dominant fruit for me, whispers of coconut exist, but more dominant is an incredible incense/sandalwood vibe. On the nose, the incense/sandalwood vibe is very reminiscent of how Drambuie smells. In the mouth however, the taste is very reminiscent of Grand Marnier. On the finish a gentle oak and incense impression, think orange spiced tea.

Along those Grand Marnier lines, this is a sweet whisky - not as sweet as Grand Mariner, but also far from what I would consider dry or savory. Straight from the bottle, 53% ABV is too hot in my opinion. The alcohol punch is too great and the overall balance of flavors suffer as a result. I added enough water to bring the malt down to the 45% range which dials back the alcohol punch just enough to let the flavors emerge. Final verdict, would I purchase a second bottle of this? Yes. Yes I would. I have quite enjoyed my pours from this bottle when proofed down a bit and would like to keep this on my shelf.

The Shin
Nose - sandalwood, incense, orange marmalade, faint cinnamon, medium oak, cafe au lait, red apples
Taste - sharp, drying, oak, gently astringent, mild orange, mild barley
Finish - medium, leaning towards long, very gentle bitterness, some oak, slightly drying
Overall:
The most dominant impression the Shin makes initially is oak. There is a moderate amount of oak on the nose, a giant dollop of oak on the tongue, and a lingering oak/tannic dryness on the finish. The second most dominant impression, in regard to taste at least, is a tongue-punch of alcohol. The alcohol is far harsher than I expected given the malt's 15-year age statement. But here's a secret I discovered with the Shin - time is its best friend. Allowing this whisky some time (and a splash of water) to sit in the glass undisturbed does wonders - the oak retreats a bit as does the harsh alcohol. On the nose - gentle orange and incense and sandalwood are mildly present, aromas reminiscent of coffee and apples emerged. On the tongue, the oak remains, but is less tannic. There is less fruit on the tongue than on the nose, but what is there reminds me of a bold Highland style of whisky. This is not a sweet dram, nor is it a gentle dram, but it does have an enjoyable bit of moxy. Final verdict, would I purchase a second bottle of this? Probably not, at least not for $100. $70 feels more reasonable for the delivered experience and the possible labeling deception.

Comparing the two head-to-head, the mizunara influence is less in the Shin than the Kaiyo. Yes, they share some common characteristics, particularly that sandalwood/incense vibe that reminds me of Drambuie, but it is about half as potent in the Shin as it is in the Kaiyo. Further, the Kaiyo has far more ripe fruit influence than the Shin. In contrast, the Shin has far more oak influence than the Kaiyo; think a sweet, fruity pour compared to an oak-ey, drying/tannic pour. Using a wine analogy, the Kaiyo is like a jammy Malbec to the Shin's oak-driven Cabernet Sauvignon. Both are quite enjoyable, but it all boils down to what the individual taster enjoys and is looking to experience.

One final footnote. Happily the whisky producers in Japan realize the serious liability their lax labeling laws present. Unscrupulous producers not only can, but will produce crap product, label it as Japanese, rinse and repeat, and before too long, the entire industry will be regarded as crap. There are improvements on the horizon however. Not perfect improvements, but certainly positive first steps to righting the ship and ensuring Japanese whisky is properly represented by dedicated professionals rather than fly-by-night charlatans.

Cheers until May my friends.

P.S. A special thanks to Winston for this entry's opening inspiration.

Thursday, April 2, 2020

Loch Lomond 18-Year

Click to enlarge

Obersalzberg, Germany V-E day

Dear Dennis,
The man who might have written on this card once controlled Europe - three short years ago when you were born. Today he is dead, his memory dispised (sic), his country in ruins. He had a thirst for power, a low opinion of man as an individual, and a fear of intellectual honesty. He was a force for evil in the world. His passing, his defeat - a boon to mankind. But thousands died that it might be so. The price for ridding society of bad is always high.
Love,
Daddy

The letter above was written by Richard Helms, to his son Dennis, on May 8, 1945 while Richard was serving in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the European Theater of World War Two. Specifically, Richard's group was scouring the Berghof, Adolf Hitler's personal residence in the Bavarian Alps region of southern Germany. During the scouring, Mr. Helms came across Hitler's personal stationary and decided to pen the letter, beautifully summarizing the catalyst for so much pain and destruction.

So why the historical detour in a space that is dedicated to adult libations? Well dear readers, I've been in a contemplative mood lately. Two common companions during my evening contemplations tend to be a wee pour of whisky and whatever happens to be the book du jour that I am working though. Lately, said whiskey has been Loch Lomond 18 year and the book has been Inside Hitler's High Command by Geoffrey P. Megargee. The book dispels the myth that Germany's military leadership was impaired by Hitler's meddling and strategic blunders. The book illustrates quite decisively that Germany's military leadership was itself far more flawed than many realize. As I've been working through the book, my mind kept flashing back to that letter Richard Helms wrote his son.

Richard Helms went on to serve in the successor of the OSS, the Central Intelligence Agency, culminating as the Agency's Director during the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations. Today that letter hangs in the CIA Museum in Langley, Virginia. I've kept a picture of that letter in an archive of special mementos for the past nine years - at first because of the breathtaking symbolism of writing a note on Victory in Europe day, on the personal stationary of the very man that incited the need for a V-E day in the first place. But deeper than that, Mr. Helms perfectly captured the trifecta of personality traits that when possessed by a single person can induce unmeasurable pain and despair on entire populations - a thirst for power, a low opinion of man as an individual, and a fear of intellectual honesty. Mr. Helms's career in the CIA was not free of controversy and even today, his impact and policies remain debated and contentious. Rarely do simple encapsulations properly capture and reflect complex figures and complex times. Yet Mr. Helms's letter defies this phenomenon; I contend it is one of those exceedingly rare occurrences of a simple encapsulation perfectly capturing the root cause of a complex evil wrought on a complex world.

That's one companion down, let's shift gears to my second companion these recent nights - the whisky.

Loch Lomond 18 Year
Classification: Single Malt Scotch Whisky
Country: Scotland
Region: Highland (Alexandria: 55.994N, -4.577W)
Mash Bill: 100% Malted Barley
Strength: 46.0% ABV (92.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown
Filtration: Non-chill Filtered
Maturation: 18 Years in American Oak
Price: $72.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

tl;dr summary - An impulse inducing price tag for an eighteen year old malt that is ultimately enjoyable, but behaves like a whiskey a few years younger than its stated age. Calm peat accents a sherry/tidal pool vibe that sits alongside dried grass and a bit of caramel/toffee. A good, but not great whisky for your shelf whose price is its saving grace.

This Loch Lomond was an impulse purchase pure and simple. I was perusing a local store when I noticed the 18 year variant was marked down from it's lofty $89.99 all the way to $72.99. Typically, one can expect the price of an 18-year single malt to command three digits to left of its decimal point. I was instantly intrigued, but not automatically sold. When purchasing an unknown single malt, I scan the label for four criteria - strength (ideally something > 43%), filtration (non-chill filtered please), natural color (highly desired, but not a deal breaker), and an age statement (only consistently good reviews can overcome the absence of an age). Satisfying three of the four wishes combined with an enticing price meant the malt was whisked away and added to the tasting rotation.

Some post-purchase research relayed a few interesting tidbits about the Loch Lomond distillery. Loch Lomond produces their single malt scotch using both traditional copper pot stills and the so-called 'Long' stills which are copper pot stills whose necks contain rectification plates, similar to what you'd find in a column still. Another fascinating tidbit is Loch Lomond uses a myriad of different yeasts during fermentation - including two wine yeasts (French chardonnay and French sauvignon blanc). The different yeast fermentations are kept separate through distillation and blended only after maturation is complete. Floral, light, and grassy are the typical characteristics of a spirit produced by a Long still and as you'll see below, I would certainly concur.

Nose
A very interesting nose - first impression is of a salty tidal pool. A whisp of peat emerges shortly after, followed by a nice sherry sweetness. After adding a touch of water, a dry hay/grass note emerges as does barley sugar and even a bit of toffee.

Taste
The taste is less interesting than the nose - sipped neat, there is an alcohol punch and prickle that borders on harsh. A bit surprising given its age, but a splash of water calms the harshness completely. Peat, some baking spices, particularly cinnamon emerge and that sherry note lingers throughout the taste. The tidal pool note is not present, but what is present is a bit of band-aid/iodine/rubbery note. It is reminiscent of a sherried malt which is quite odd because I do not believe Loch Lomond uses any ex-sherry barrels in their maturation.

Finish
Oak and peat jump out and are the boldest components of the finish, I'd say 85% oak to 15% peat. This is not an Islay peat bomb by any measure, but the peat is there. There is a toffee/brown sugar aspect to the tail-end of the finish that is quite enjoyable. Some grape fruitiness as well, but a whisper, not a shout. Overall I'd classify the finish's duration as medium, leaning towards short. I'd expect a longer finish given the strength and age, but it is what it is as they say.

Overall
If I were to taste this whisky blind, I'd swear there was ex-sherry maturation involved, but alas, there is none. Loch Lomond uses exclusively ex-American oak, none of which ever held any wine. Internet sleuthing indicates it's Loch Lomond's mixture of yeast types as well as still variations that produce these varied impressions, which is quite remarkable.

How does this malt stack up for me? On the negative side, the whisky has more alcohol harshness than I would expect from an 18-year old malt and likewise, the finish is shorter than I would expect from a whisky this old and bottled at 46% ABV. On the positive side, a small addition of water resolves the alcohol harshness. The aroma of the whisky is quite enjoyable and unique, a mixture of peat, seashore, and hay, and last but certainly not least, it's value cannot be beat. You will be hard pressed to find an 18-year single malt for less.

Would I purchase a second bottle? Not for the typical un-discounted $90 retail prices I've seen. But the good news is that the 18-year is seemingly perpetually on sale in the $75 range. I won't purchase a second bottle straight away before I finish the bottle I have on hand, but I certainly see myself picking up a second bottle at some point in the future. It is a solid pour to have when you are craving a bit of peat but don't want an Islay bomb or when you are craving a bit of fruity heaviness but don't want a sherry bomb.

I have a long lineup of tastings in the hopper at the moment. Who knows what fun detour we'll take in future posts, perhaps an in-depth discussion of America's Cup yacht design evolution or yet another chapter in my on-going life's opus: Magnum P.I. - The 9th Season We All Deserve: Requiem for The Lads.

Stay safe everyone.