The Royal Bermuda Yacht Club

 

First referenced in Trader Vic's 1947 Bartender's Guide, the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club is a delicious variation of a traditional Daiquiri. While there is indeed an actual namesake establishment, I am unsure how and why the drink came to be named. Perhaps a bit of field research is needed, meanwhile, what is totally devoid of uncertainty is the complimentary cohesiveness of this concoction. Like a spiked, spiced limeade, fans of the citrus world's green gem are sure to be delighted. While lime is the dominant flavor, the rum and falernum bring an interesting mix of spice and sweet. Tying the whole experience together is the curacao, which while never dominant, is always detectable.

 

Ingredients

• 2.0 ounces aged rum (see Rum Minutiae note below)
• 0.75 ounces lime juice
• 0.50 ounces falernum
• 0.25 ounces dry curacao
• Dash of simple syrup (optional, only if needed)
  

Composition 

Place all ingredients in a cocktail shaker, stir, and taste. If too bitter/citrus-heavy for your tastes, add a dash of simple syrup. Once satisfied, add ice to the shaker and shake, rattle and roll for a good 15 to 20 seconds. Strain into a glass, traditionally stemware, but you can use whatever tickles your fancy. Sit back, sip, and give a silent nod of thanks to the tiki enthusiasts around the globe that not only created but preserved these concoctions through the years.

Rum Minutiae

Most recipes call for a Barbados rum, which I too echo. I've also quite enjoyed using Guyana rums, particularly El Dorado. You will want a rum with 3-10 years of age under its belt. Unlike a traditional daiquiri, I'd avoid a rum younger than 3 years of age. 

 

Recently I've enjoyed a hybrid approach to the rum selection - using an ounce of 5-year El Dorado and an ounce of a finished Barbados rum, either Doorly's XO or Mount Gay XO. The Doorly's hails from the Foursquare distillery and spends 6 years in ex-bourbon before being finished for a short period of time in ex-sherry barrels. The Mount Gay XO is a blend of rums aged 5 to 17 years with components of the blend spending time in ex-American whiskey barrels (both bourbon and non-bourbon) and ex-Cognac barrels. These finished rums from Barbados inject a nice dash of added complexity to an already satisfying libation.

 

The final rum note is the recommendation to avoid using aged Jamaican rums in this drink. While I personally adore Jamaican rums, the funk they bring to cocktails clashes more than it compliments in this particular cocktail. Don't fret though, Jamaican rums have plenty of other concoctions where their presence is mandatory, simply store the funk for use another day. Cheers!

 

Montrose & Sons Caol Ila 10-Year

Classification: Single Malt Scotch Whisky
Country: Scotland
Region: Islay (Port Askaig: 55.854°N -6.109°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Malted Barley
Strength: 47.1% ABV (94.2° Proof)
Color: Unknown (suspect natural color)
Filtration: Non-chill Filtered
Maturation: 10 years in 100% ex-bourbon casks
Price: $64.97 (Total Wine)

 

Tl;dr summary - A remarkably enjoyable Caol Ila from an independent bottler that little is known about. Whisky hailing not only from a single cask but an independent bottler can oftentimes be quite unique from official offerings from the source distillery, but not here. Caol Ila’s signature profile of modest peat, lemon peel, and vanilla is instantly recognizable proving that this particular cask was no oddball being discarded by the distillery. Priced fairly and bottled with little alteration, this malt is a great representation of not only Islay’s largest distillery but the splendid potential of independently sourced barrels of whisky.

While Ardbeg, Lagavulin, and Laphroaig usually garner the lion’s share of the Islay spotlight, I’ve always been enamored with the malts from Caol Ila. Whiskies from Islay are renowned for their peat smoke influence and while Caol Ila is indeed peated, the magic of Caol Ila to me is how the smoke is more co-star than scene-stealer in the malt.

This particular bottle came into my life courtesy of Total Wine. Despite having never heard of Montrose & Sons (and Google not returning any compelling brand history), I took a leap based on the transparency of the whisky being offered: name of the distillery, age, higher than standard strength, non-chill filtered, and maturation cask details. Oh and all of the above offered at a reasonable asking price. There is always a risk that an independent bottling will not match the standard of official bottlings from the respective distillery, but in my anecdotal experience, I’ve never experienced a ‘bad’ independent whisky. What these independent whiskies tend to be is different from official bottlings. Personally I find this exciting and have stumbled across genuine gems of one-of-a-kind whiskies. And therein lies the rub - being an independent bottling and typically from a single-cask, these whiskies are destined to be one-and-done, never to be repeated affairs. Once the bottle is drained, that particular shooting star of a malt is gone forever. Don’t be sad that it’s over, be happy that it happened at all …. or something like that.

This 10-year old independent bottling does not stray too far from the Caol Ila I fell in love with all those years ago, the 12-year old. The majority of Caol Ila, particularly their younger offerings, is matured exclusively in ex-bourbon barrels. I suspect that commonality, combined with the independent only being two years younger than its official counterpart, play a large part in the similarities between these two. Where the Montrose & Sons example gains a significant edge however is in its bump in strength, 47.1% vs 43.0% to be precise. That extra 4.1% ABV may seem small, but does it ever amplify the experience. Flavors are more vibrant and reverberate longer. The malt has more margin for tinkering with dilution and is not as easily washed out as the standard offering. That last point is a bit moot however as this malt drinks beautifully at its full strength, indicating that the whisky spent all ten of its years in a quality barrel. I do suspect that Montrose & Sons diluted this Caol Ila down a bit before bottling - I’d wager the malt drained from the barrel at least 10% higher in strength. While I’d love a true cask-strength offering, I do applaud Montrose & Sons for leaving the proof above the standard offering’s 43%.

One final note - while Montrose & Sons do not state this whisky is natural in color, one look at the bottle and I feel safe in saying it is indeed au natural with no added artificial coloring. The same cannot be said for the official bottling of 12-year old Caol Ila. One of the sad realities of many Diageo whiskies is that they do indeed contain artificial coloring to make them appear darker. Also, the official bottling is chill-filtered to ensure perfectly clear whiskey, even when water/ice is added. Montrose & Sons gratefully did not chill-filter their Caol Ila and I believe their offering is stronger for it. Perhaps this difference in filtering also contributes to the 10-year being more vibrant and bright. In the past decade I’ve seen more and more producers abandon the use of both artificial coloring and chill-filtration as consumers become educated to both practices and realize that neither is needed to produce a quality whisky. Here’s to hoping that Caol Ila’s official offerings ditch both and let their signature malt sing its song unhindered.

Nose
Peat-smoke (shocking, I know), lemon, caramel/vanilla. A bit of seaweed/seashore. Passing scent of pine and mint.

Taste
The peat is more prominent in the taste than in the smell. Once acclimated, lemon oil begins to emerge. One of my favorite cocktails is a Sazerac which I garnish with a lemon twist that I drop in the drink (some will think that blasphemous for a Sazerac, to each their own). Anyway, after finishing a Sazerac, I usually eat that lemon twist, chewing and extracting the soaked-in remnants of the Sazerac combined with an intense hit of lemon oil, damn I find that tasty. I say all this to say that Caol Ila always makes me think of that lemon twist - every sip of Caol Ila I’ve had delivers that awesome lemon oil note. In addition to the lemon, there is a vanilla/caramel note, even a salted caramel note. This is not a dark caramel, more like a blonde caramel that has just started its turn from white/clear to light brown.

Finish
Dominated by citrus and peat smoke in equal parts. Vanilla and mint make an appearance, but this is a lemon-infused smoke show first and foremost. The finish is long and the peat smoke can linger in my sinuses for a number of hours. Really quite remarkable how that component sticks around for the long haul.

Overall
As I said, I’ve always enjoyed Caol Ila’s whisky. Happily their standard offerings are fairly easy to find and there are numerous independent bottlings of their whisky. I have yet to be disappointed by any of them, but keep in mind if you do not like peated whisky, then you will not like peated Caol Ila. Four years ago when our whiskey tasting group was knocking out monthly group tastings, Caol Ila 12-year was month #4’s mystery whisky. It was in that tasting that Caol Ila’s legend grew exponentially for me as one participant penned one of the finest set of whiskey impressions I’ve ever read. It was the first peated whisky this taster had ever tried and boy oh boy did they hate the experience. Their concluding sentence has stuck with me to this day such that whenever I see a bottle of Caol Ila in the wild, their words reverberate in the ole noggin:

This was, by every measure, an evil that was put upon me. I suffered, and am changed. I have no idea what this could be, besides distilled wickedness and pain.

Simply brilliant, and a vibrant reminder that oftentimes it’s the disappointments in life that tend to provide the greatest insight, humor, and hope for our future endeavors. As always, trust your senses, seek out what you like, and learn from the rest. Until next time.

Group Taste-off No. 14!

After a two year sabbatical (and what a couple of years they were), the band has reunited for yet another group tasting. This time around, two mystery whiskeys were sent out, one labeled as 'Green' and the other as 'Yellow'. The standard instructions for this tasting were augmented with the following additions: describe how these two whiskeys directly compared to each other, did each taster prefer one over the other, and lastly, would the taster purchase a bottle of either with their own hard-earned.

Unsurprisingly, the two whiskeys sent out were indeed closely related to each another and the group's whiskey-spidey-senses were all over it. But before we get to the group's impressions, let's remove the cloak of mystery and reveal our two whiskeys. Both Kentucky straight bourbons hailing from Brown-Forman's Old Forester distillery in Shively, Kentucky.

Whiskey 'Green':

Old Forester 1910 Old Fine Whisky
Classification: Kentucky Straight Bourbon
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky (Shively: 38.242N, -85.817W)
Mash Bill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, and 10% Malted Barley
Strength: 46.5% ABV (93.0° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Unknown (most likely non-chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown duration in new charred American oak followed by unknown duration in a new, heavily charred American oak barrel
Price: $54.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

 

Whiskey 'Yellow':

Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style
Classification: Kentucky Straight Bourbon
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky (Shively: 38.242N, -85.817W)
Mash Bill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, and 10% Malted Barley
Strength: 57.5% ABV (115.0° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Unknown (most likely non-chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown duration in new charred American oak
Price: $59.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

 

Established in 1870 by George Garvin Brown, as in the Brown of today's beverage giant Brown-Forman, Old Forester bourbon has been offered without interruption in the United States since its debut. It is the longest continually offered bourbon available today. By comparison, both 1910 and 1920 are but wee pups when plotted on Old Forester's historical chronology. While junior in terms of brand tenure, both 1910 and 1920 are members of Old Forester's Whiskey Row series which debuted in 2014. 1920 Prohibition Style joined the series in 2016, accompanying the 1870 Original Batch and the 1897 Bottled in Bond entries. Two years later in 2018, the 1910 Old Fine Whisky completed the series and all four are year-round standard offerings from Old Forester. One pedantic note: while unusual in American whiskey, Old Forester, like Maker's Mark, label their whiskey as 'whisky' in a nod to the Scottish ancestry found in the respective families of each product's founder.

 

Each of the four entries in the series is accompanied by a story explaining the historical significance of the respective product in Old Forester's lineup. The 1920 version celebrates the fact that the Old Forester distillery was one of only six distilleries permitted to remain in operation during the dark, dark days of Prohibition in the United States. Old Forester states during this period, whiskey was barreled at 50% ABV which would rise during the years of maturation as water evaporated from the barrels. The final result after maturation was a whiskey whose ABV was in the 57% range. Hence, the 1920 offering, labeled as a 'Prohibition Style' of Old Forester, is bottled at 57.5% ABV.

 

The 1910 offering has a similarly compelling story. According to Brown-Forman, on October 22, 1910, a fire on the bottling line halted production of Old Forester. Mature whisky that was in vats on the bottling line had to evacuated and was quickly transferred to secondary barrels and rolled to safety. When the rescued whiskey was eventually bottled, its taste was distinct enough to merit being bottled under a brand new label from Old Forester - Old Fine Whisky, making it the first official bottling of a double-cask matured bourbon.

 

Today's 1910 offering pays tribute to this history by taking standard Old Forester, proofing it down to 50% ABV, and transferring to a second heavily charred American oak barrel. Brown-Forman states that the second barrel used in 1910’s production is by far the heaviest char they have ever applied to a barrel. A standard Old Forester barrel receives ~22 seconds of flame exposure whereas the secondary barrels used in 1910’s production receive ~50 seconds. The folks at Old Forester have said in interviews that 1910's second barrel is charred almost to the point of incineration.

 

Coincidentally, Brown-Forman produce another whiskey that has very similar characteristics to 1910: Woodford Reserve Double Oaked. Like 1910, Woodford's Double Oaked begins life as a standard offering from its respective distillery that is then transferred to a new second barrel for a period of time. There are a few differences however. For starters, Woodford Reserve bourbon is actually a blend of pot-distilled whiskey produced at the Woodford Reserve distillery and column-distilled whiskey produced at the Old Forester distillery. Also, unlike the heavily charred barrel of 1910, Woodford's Double Oaked is transferred to a heavily toasted, but not charred second barrel.

While neither 1910 or 1920 disclose any age statements, there is some scuttlebutt and speculation guessing at each whiskey's age. It is believed that 1910 is a standard 4-year old Old Forester that is proofed down to 50% ABV and then spends 6-9 months in that heavily charred second barrel. The 1920 by comparison is thought to be a bit older, but not by much with speculation placing its age in the 5 to 6 year range. Both products are produced from Brown-Forman's standard bourbon recipe which is also used at Woodford Reserve, though as stated above, Old Forester is 100% column-distilled whiskey whereas Woodford Reserve is a blend of pot-distilled and column-distilled whiskey.

Official Tasting Notes

Old Forester 1910 Old Fine Whisky (courtesy of Old Forester)

 

 

Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style (courtesy of Old Forester)

 

Group Impressions

I've long envisioned this tasting as I've always been intrigued by the effect maturation has on whiskey. To me, a whiskey's lifecycle can be divided into two phases. The first phase, progression from grain to beer to distillate, is pure chemical engineering. Highly consistent results can be obtained in this phase by the application of sound, thorough procedures and processes. The second phase, progression from freshly distilled ethanol to mature bottled whiskey, is just as much art as it is science. No two barrels are alike nor do they influence a whiskey in an identical manner. Factor in different barrel types and different locations where those barrels are stored and you have the potential for wildly diverse results in matured whiskey.

In this tasting, we have two whiskeys that are subjected to identical production techniques up until the point the Old Forester 1910 is transferred to a second charred oak barrel. How does this seemingly simple deviation change the end product? Significantly it turns out, but not so profoundly that it overwhelms the whiskey's foundational roots. As for the group's overall impressions, many immediately recognized both were bourbons, particularly a bourbon with a strong rye component. So pronounced was the rye, that a few tasters even theorized they were dealing with a rye whiskey. Impressively, some in the group displayed their keen senses speculating both whiskeys shared the same mash-bill and possibly hailed from the same distillery.

 

In regard to personal preferences, Green (Old Forester 1910) received 5 votes to Yellow's (Old Forester 1920) 3 votes making Old Forester 1910 the preferred whiskey in this tasting. It is worth noting however that two of the tasters, while willing to pick a preference, also stated that they would not purchase either for their home shelf.

 

Great stuff all around, and a special nod of appreciation to those who mixed some of their mystery whiskey into a libation and reported back!

Admiral Hawkes
Upon receiving these bottles I immediately held them both up to the light and observed that they had the exact same color.  Hmmmm... were we dealing with different treatments of the same mash bill? Then I opened each and had a sniff. They seemed to have the same aroma as well. I ruled out scotch but could not discern what type of whiskey we were dealing with. That had to wait.

I drank each of them neat twice.

Mr Green, in the kitchen, with a highball glass: The nose on this was quite different in the glass than it was confined in the small bottle. I kept thinking orange fruit, and settled on apricot as the dominant note. I knocked back the first taste, and noted a pretty good alcohol burn and a delightful finish. The note I wrote was, "not sure what it is, but I like it". I kept asking myself what I was tasting and thought maybe that this one was aged in a charred cask. As the glass was emptied, the aromatic notes intensified, presumably from the remnants on the side and bottom of the glass. If I were to bet, I'd say this whiskey was a rye, or had a good amount of rye in the mash bill. Liked it, and have enough left for a Manhattan, which may happen this evening.

Colonel Mustard, in the Conservatory, with a Candlestick: The yellow labeled sample confounded me. I had ruled out scotch from the sniff test, but this one had the mouth feel of a scotch to me. It was nutty on the nose, perhaps almonds were suggested. It has less of an alcohol burn than Mr. Green, and had a lightness to it that made it an enjoyable drink. If I were to guess on this one, I'd probably swerve and say Irish Whiskey based upon its Scotch-like character which I just couldn't dodge. The remnants of this one will go in a cup of coffee when I feel so inclined. If I am wrong, who cares? It is still kicked-up coffee (no whipped cream, please)!

Both were nice, and if I had to choose my taste leans toward Mr. Green.

Apollo
For this review I started with the green one. The color was a nice amber, on the dark side. It smelled strongly of alcohol and some spice and sweetness. I found it to be pretty harsh on the tongue, which led me to believe that this might be a higher proof whiskey than most. Honestly, I didn’t much care for this one. It was too sweet for me, which leads me to believe that it’s a bourbon. I didn’t care for the alcohol burn but when I tried it with an ice cube, that just brought out the sweetness even more.

The yellow one one was next. That seemed a little better to me. It was almost exactly the same color as the first one. The smell was a bit more gentle but it still had a sweetness to it. The taste confirmed the smell. It didn’t have as much burn as the green one but it was still too sweet for me.

Personally, I don’t think I’d buy a bottle of either one, but I’m not a big bourbon fan (I do enjoy bourbon-based cocktails, but if I’m drinking whiskey it’s normally scotch). I did prefer the yellow one to the green, though, since it was smoother. I got the impression that these were both bourbons and that the green one was probably higher proof or less mature.

Bottom line, I thought yellow was better than green. But they both get a pass from me.

Francis 'Icepick' Hofstetler
Yellow Label
My first impression was that this whiskey had a high alcohol content. Upfront it had a sweet taste, and I thought I tasted vanilla. The finish was more boozy. I tried the whiskey neat, but my larger pour was over a large ice ball. This is how I tend to drink any whiskey.

There wasn't anything I disliked about the whiskey. However, I tend to prefer whiskey's that are in the 40% alcohol range, and this seemed higher than that.

Based on the sweetness, I think this is bourbon. Possibly Colonel Taylor Small Batch.

Green Label
Like the Yellow Label one, this whiskey also had a high alcohol content. I didn't find this whiskey as sweet as the Yellow one, and it wasn't quite as smooth. It seemed more middle of the road. Not sweet and not too smokey either in taste or smell. I do think it is an American Whiskey, so I'm guessing it was a Rye. I drank this over an ice ball.

I preferred the Yellow Label, but I don't think I would purchase either due to what I deemed the high alcohol content. I simply find them a bit too harsh on my stomach, frankly.

 

Jonathan Quayle Higgins
Green: 1910
Smell: Wood resin, nail polish remover, medium charred oak. The addition of water eliminates the nail polish remover vibe. Cigar humidor

Taste: Faint fruit, sawdust, gentle alcohol, gentle brown sugar, near-immediate tannin sensation (drying). The addition of water brings out more wood.

Finish: Medium-length, sawdust, very gentle sweetness.

Yellow: 1920
Smell: Chocolate coated cherries, brown sugar, distant barrel char, vanilla, medium-light ethanol

Taste: Stronger alcohol, mint, strong fruit sugar, gentle wood, cinnamon candy

Finish: Oak, leather, vanilla, brown sugar, ethanol, cool mint, fermented corn mash. Long length.

General Notes

• Green is a touch darker than Yellow
• Both have an inherent sweetness on the nose.
• Green smells, tastes, and finishes drier and less sweet than Yellow
• Yellow is fruit, Green is wood.
• Neither is crap whiskey, the ethanol is well controlled in both and neither has any wood astringency. Both could be considered sippin’ whiskeys
• Yellow has a longer finish than Green but Yellow’s finish is much punchier with the ethanol
• Green aged well - the longer it sat in the glass, the more I enjoyed it. Yellow did not evolve as much, its experience stayed consistent, but green morphed and improved the longer it sat.
• Time in the glass plus water is Green’s best friend
• Green lacked the length of finish, but did have more complexity than yellow

Would I purchase either bottle? Yes, 1910 for sipping and 1920 for cocktails
Did I prefer one over the other? I’d say 1910 simply for how well it evolved in the glass with time

Waldo Norris
First impressions when I poured these 2 samples neat were on the noser. Both came out sweet, heavy vanilla, yellow had a slightly more spicy note to it than the green bottle. Green almost smelled like a candy corn. These 2 glasses however are incredibly similar in smell and while I am no connoisseur of smelly things, despite my years of trying to smell what those sommeliers of wine could smell, my nose is not good enough to pick up on the differences between these aside from the yellow bottle having slightly earthiness to it.

My first pour was neat, and this is where I picked up on the differences between these two... although still amazing is how different and similar they are. The Yellow was spicier, coated the tongue nicely and had a good amount of heat that stuck around for a good many seconds after. The green bottle is smoother, has almost no burn aside from a subtle amount on my lips. The green bottle despite it being spicy was a bit grassier and the yellow bottle had maybe a little orange peel type of feel to it.All that said again, had it not been for the difference between the spice differences between these 2 pours, they are super similar.

Mixed drink time! I decided to make 2 small, but enjoyable manhattans. Nothing fancy, and I avoided the sugar (ya know, to be healthier) and went with a lemon spritz and peel. The Yellow bottle had a nicer balance with the drink and I could pick up on the spice a little more than the green bottle. Both are quite enjoyable, but if I were to pick, I would go with the yellow bottle over the green. I just tend to want the whisky to stand out unless I am going for something very sweet.

I very much think we have a Rye in the Yellow bottle and a Bourbon in the Green.  

Because I am currently in more of a mixed drink phase lately, I would likely choose the yellow bottle over the green bottle.  I simply enjoyed the drink more. If I were going to drink neat or with an ice cube, I would enjoy the sweetness of the green more.

 I would say they came from the same distillery or even from the same label, but where's the fun in that.

Zeus
#1 Green
Appearance: Dark amber, looks like maple syrup

Smell: Slight sweet woody smell, reminds me of Woodford bourbon. Does smell maple like but it might be my subconscious throwing that in there due to the color.

Taste: Ohhh, much sweeter then I expected. Definitely a bourbon. Slight caramel taste. Is that maple? I think I taste maple. Damn you subconscious!

Finish: Slight bite a few seconds after sipping. Burn lasts way longer than a normal 80 proof, thinking it's 90 or 95 proof

General Thoughts: Very tasty! I'd like this as a base in a old fashion, which I promptly made into an old fashioned. It was as delicious as I had hoped for.

#2 Yellow
Appearance: Amber, slightly lighter than batch green

Smell: Whoa, much more burn in the smell than green. Not picking up much else other than my nostril hairs screaming at me

Taste: Holy moly, that seemed smoother than green on the initial taste. Another bourbon. Getting a more brown sugar taste out of yellow.

Finish: Burn does not last as long as green. Slight bitter taste that lingers.

General Thoughts: Pretty good!  I didn't like the finish  as much as green but it was very comparable.

How are these two whiskeys similar and/or dissimilar to each other?
Both are bourbons. Green is a bit darker. Green is sweeter, yellow is smoother. Maple notes always win with me. Some day they will perfect a whiskey that combines maple, butter, bacon, and waffles for a complete breakfast experience.

Did you like one more than the other?
Green would be my choice, but marginally so. The initial taste of yellow was better but green won on the finish. Might be less of a difference if they were in an old fashion.

Would you buy a bottle of either (or both or neither)?
Yes, either would be get Zeus's seal of approval.

Was one a clear-cut favorite or did you enjoy (or not enjoy) both fairly equally?
Only marginally like green better, enjoyed them both.

Carol Baldwin
#1 Green
Appearance: Dark caramel color

Smell: Sharp, sweet, slightly floral, green, caramel, alcohol.

Taste: Texture is smooth, somewhat viscous and rich. Taste is green and sharp, mellowing into warm caramel vanilla with an astringent finish.

Finish: Alcohol, astringent with a warming after-burn.

General Thoughts: This whiskey had an interesting evolution of flavors.  The sharpness seems to dominate on my palate, yet I keep sipping to get that progression from sharp green into warm vanilla caramel.

#2 Yellow
Appearance: Butterscotch caramel color

Smell: Slightly sharp alcohol, butterscotch caramel.

Taste: Smooth, rich toffee, butterscotch vanilla

Finish: Pleasantly smooth and rich, warm alcohol.

General Thoughts: Just a nice sipper all around. All of the flavors you expect with bourbon. I expect this would be nice in a cocktail as well.

How are these two whiskeys similar and/or dissimilar to each other? .
The Green labeled whiskey had a very pronounced sharpness and greenness to it (was this a hint regarding the contents?) with just a slight promise of mellow warm vanilla flavors. The finish was quite astringent. The Yellow labelled whiskey was noticeably more smooth on the palate, with pronounced warm vanilla flavors. The finish was smooth and warm.

Did you like one more than the other?
Yes, I prefer the Yellow labelled whiskey.

Would you buy a bottle of either (or both or neither)?
The Yellow!

Was one a clear-cut favorite or did you enjoy (or not enjoy) both fairly equally?
While the Green label was an interesting sip, I did prefer the Yellow overall.

Robin Masters
#1 Yellow   #2 Green

#1 has an orange-amber glow, is slightly more translucent and leaves a stationery ring of liquid behind at the crest of the swirl.

#2 is a slightly darker amber giving the impression it has either aged longer or been in a darker charred barrel. When swirled, it leaves a thicker coating of liquid behind producing a show of lazy cascading drops down the side of the glass. There is a slight bit more opaqueness to #2.

#1 starts out with smells of butterscotch, softer varnish, leading into ginger snap, grass, mint, verbena and finally into cinnamon red hot candy. There is a strong, sharp bite with a minty and buttery finish.

#2 starts out with a strongly sugary caramel smell and then shifts into coffee cake. A surprising strong wood varnish note overwhelms and fades into a recently blown out candle smoke. There is a softer bite, but a longer finish. Soft sweetness on the front end with a very delayed buttery end.

Both feel like a higher proof. Water was added after 3 sips. #1’s addition of water turned this one into a mean, and angry prickler. #2’s addition of water kept it nice, and a salt water taffy, salted dark caramel note surfaced. #2 is still leading in the sweetness category and the cascading drops show goes on completely unaffected by the water.

#1 is starting to turn more perfumy. #1 with water and time is starting to soften the sharp edges, and is getting smoother to drink, but still punchy. Vanilla.

#2 is mimicking characteristics of a high proof sherry whisky. Pile of aging autumn leaves. Banana. Sugary sweet finish. I would choose #2 if I had to pick between the two.

Redbreast Iberian Series: The PX Edition

Redbreast Iberian Series: The PX Edition
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (mixture of malted and un-malted barley)
Strength: 46.0% ABV (92.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (Internet speculation claims natural color)
Filtration: Unknown (Internet speculation claims non-chill filtered)
Maturation: No Age Statement (Internet speculation claims 8-10 years in ex-bourbon and ex-sherry then 12-22 months in Pedro Ximénez sherry hogshead casks)
Price: $104.99 (Total Wine)

Tl;dr summary - Another stunner from the folks at the New Midleton Distillery. While unique enough to justify its existence among other Redbreast offerings, this PX Edition of the Iberian Series to my tastes is most reminiscent of the fabled 12-year. The aroma of the whiskey steals the show, relegating the finish and taste to second and third place respectively. Honey, toasted macadamia nuts, vanilla latte, gentle white pepper, raisins, and ripe plum all make appearances at various points. Like the Lustau Edition, the sherry influence is elevated from the standard 12-year yet is understandably quite different thanks to the usage of Pedro Ximénez in this version. Safe to say this whiskey will be a regret-free purchase for fans of both Redbreast as well as Pedro Ximénez finished whiskeys.

What we have today is the second entry in Redbreast’s ‘Iberian Series’. The series was launched to pay homage to the various styles of sherry whose barrels are so treasured for their delicious influence on Redbreast’s Irish whiskey as it matures. Unlike the first entry in the series, the Lustau Edition which is now a permanent entry in Redbreast’s portfolio, this second entry, called the PX Edition as it utilizes Pedro Ximénez barrels, is meant to be a limited one-time release.

Like every limited release from Redbreast that has come before, I knew the odds would be against me when it came to procuring a bottle from a local retailer. Frustratingly, Redbreast availability in my area has been spotty for the past few years, especially for anything other than their standard 12-year offering. Imagine my delight when seven(ish) weeks ago while perusing a reputable online retailer’s inventory I was able to place an order for a bottle of the PX Edition. Being able to nab a limited release whiskey from an online retailer at MSRP is a tremendous stroke of luck and not a typical experience for me. As it turned out, things were indeed too good to be true. Two weeks after placing the order, I received a notification that fulfilling the order would take longer than anticipated due to the vague, yet common refrain of ‘supply chain issues’ and ‘COVID-related delays’. “Okay, a delay is no big deal” I thought, “after all, I am still getting the whiskey”. Two and half weeks after that, I received a second notification, this one telling me that my order was being canceled and refunded in full due to unforeseen issues on the retailer’s side. I was disappointed and a tad dejected as I presumed this was going to be one Redbreast I would not be able to try, but King Brian must have been looking out for me because a St. Patrick’s Day miracle was on the horizon.

On that most Irish of holidays, I stopped off at my local Total Wine not for whiskey, but to replenish a recently depleted bottle of Appleton Estate 8-year. As I made my way past the whiskey aisle en route to the rum aisle, I noticed, expectedly I suppose, that the Irish whiskey section had been dutifully well stocked. Imagine my delight when I saw the particular shelf housing the Redbreast offerings not only had a full complement of their standard products, but a complete row of the harder-to-find entries like the 21-year, the 27-year and yes, miraculously, this new PX Edition of their Iberian Series. How fitting to find this crock of single pot still Irish gold on St. Paddy’s day. Thanks King Brian, I am forever grateful.

Normally I collect my impressions and opinions of a given whiskey spread across numerous pours enjoyed through the better part of a month. That tradition was broken for this set of impressions, so giddy was I at my Irish good fortune that I felt compelled to post earlier than I normally would. Should my impressions of this whiskey change in the coming months, I’m sure an update will be posted. With that disclosure in mind, let’s get to sipping.

Nose
Roasted macadamia nuts, prune/raisin, faint fresh cut green grass, very slight ethanol, cinnamon spice, a smell that reminds me of a vanilla latte as well as a mocha latte.

Taste
Strong ethanol punch at first. A good bit more oak in the taste. Cinnamon, nutmeg, candied fruit (like that found in a fruit cake), gentle brown sugar. Definite sherry vibe, but a good sherry vibe consisting of raisins and currants.

Finish
Medium to medium-long in length. Oak, cinnamon, raisin, and gentle vanilla.

Overall
The nose steals the show here. Ranking the experience, it is Nose > Finish > Taste for me. I am not implying that the taste is disappointing or bad, it’s just not as special as the smell and finish for me. In fact, I think the taste of the 12-year Cask Strength is substantially more interesting than the taste of the PX Edition. The Pedro Ximénez influence is definitely noticeable and happily quite different from the Lustau sherry influence in the Lustau Edition. While this whiskey has no age statement, there is no doubt in my mind that it is aged for a sufficient period of time as there are no rough, prickly alcohol edges. The oak is pronounced, but controlled. The sherry influence is strong, but not dominant. My personal benchmark for Redbreast is their 12-year Cask Strength and while this PX Edition is similar, the extra boost of Pedro Ximénez diverts this whiskey into a different (and enjoyable) direction.

While enjoyable, this PX Edition does not top the 12-year Cask Strength to my tastes. While I think this whiskey is worthy of its asking price, I will not be seeking out a second bottle to squirrel away for a future zombie apocalypse. Enjoyable, but not as enjoyable to my tastes as the fruitier, grassier, and nuttier 12-year Cask Strength. Considering this whiskey’s MSRP is comparable (note: many retailers are tacking on ~$20 kickers), my biggest criticism is its price - it costs the same(ish) as a superior offering in Redbreast’s lineup. Ultimately, an enjoyable whiskey with no critical flaws, a whiskey that fans of Pedro Ximénez finished whisky should seek out, but for fans of the 12-year Cask Strength, it is not worthy of moving heaven and earth to procure. For those customers, should King Brian snap his fingers and a bottle spontaneously appears in your path, by all means scoop it up, otherwise don’t fret for a moment if you never encounter a bottle in the wild. Cheers to Redbreast - you folks produce an outstanding lineup of Irish whiskey, nary a dud in the bunch.

I Choo Choo Choose You!

I like you Clarence. Always have, always will.

 

While Valentine's Day may be nothing more than a corporate ploy to sell candy, cards, paternity tests, and jewelry, this year I've decided to take the holiday back from the faux love-spewing shills and send out real trinkets of affection. What better way to get the band back together than to send out my version of Valentine's Day cards for yet another round of blind whiskey tasting.

 

The same ground rules as before apply, but since this round features two different whiskeys, in addition to providing a brief set of impressions for each whiskey, there is an additional request of our tasters: send along thoughts of how these two whiskeys compare and contrast to one another. 

 

How are these two whiskeys similar and/or dissimilar to each other? 

 

Did you like one more than the other? 

 

Would you buy a bottle of either (or both or neither)? 

 

Was one a clear-cut favorite or did you enjoy (or not enjoy) both fairly equally?

Look for the reveal and group impressions in mid to late March. As always, thanks to everyone for playing along, it promises to be a grand time.

Mount Gay - The Port Cask Expression

Mount Gay Port Cask Expression (2020 Master Blender Collection)
Classification: Barbados Rum
Country: Barbados
Region: Saint Lucy (Mount Gay: 13.289N, -59.614W)
Mash Bill: 100% Molasses
Strength: 55.0% ABV (110.0° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Non-chill Filtered
Maturation: Column-distilled rum aged for 5 years in tawny port barrels. Pot-distilled rum aged for 14 years in ex-bourbon followed by 1 year in tawny port barrels
Price: $194.99 (Total Wine)

Tl;dr summary - An experience that redefined what I thought was possible from a rum. Expensive and limited, but also a milestone experience whose first pour I will remember for the rest of my days. One of the very few triple-digit priced spirits that I actually felt was worth more than the price paid. While a safe bet rum lovers will gush, those who are not super-fans of sipping rums should exercise caution as the spirit does not transcend the category and automatically convert any who taste into a rum lover.

Rum’s current status in the world of spirits is a perfect embodiment of the popular adage ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. As whiskey’s popularity surged in the previous decade, fans of distilled grain inevitably began to seek out and sample other distilled spirits. Many found a second (or third) love in distilled molasses/sugar (rum), distilled fruit (brandy, Cognac, and Armagnac), or distilled plant (Tequila and Mezcal courtesy of the agave plant). While certain rum producers already embraced higher-end offerings (well aged rums, rums bottled at cask strength, etc.), the influx of whiskey fans scouring liquor store rum shelves resulted in a significant uptick in premium offerings from rum producers across the globe. One such offering is the topic of today’s post, but before we jump into that, allow a brief indulgence to delve into rum’s story, and what a story it is.

It is no exaggeration to say that the history of rum is inextricably tied to the history of the New World. Sugar cultivation quite literally shaped the Americas and Caribbean Islands while simultaneously generating empire-building levels of wealth. It will never be known who first distilled rum, theoretically any group that cultivated and refined sugar could very well lay claim to that accomplishment. The first documented reference to rum comes from a mid-1600s correspondence sent from the British colonists on the island of Barbados back to England describing a drink called “Kill-Devil”: “a sugar cane distilled, hot, hellish, and terrible liquor (…), made of the skimmings of the Coopers that boil the sugar.” Further, a deed recorded in 1703 for a parcel of land on Barbados lists “two stone windmills (…). One boiling house with seven coppers, one curing house, and one still house.” Neither is conclusive proof that rum originated on Barbados but it is the earliest documented mention of rum thus far found and Barbados ran with the distinction proclaiming itself as the birthplace of rum. Oh and that deed mentioned above is for the precise chunk of Barbados that the Mount Gay distillery sits on, leading Mount Gay to proclaim itself as the oldest rum distillery in the world.

Putting aside the debate over absolute historical accuracy, what is beyond dispute is the fact that Mount Gay produces outstanding rums. So outstanding in fact that when submitted for approval alongside the rums from a second Barbadian distillery, Foursquare, the rums of Barbados are recognized the world round as a genre-defining benchmark of excellence. While some might debate Barbados’s claim in originating rum, few dare to dispute that some of the finest rums produced in the world emanate from that humble island on the eastern edge of the Lesser Antilles.

All of Mount Gay’s rums begin life as fermented molasses derived from sugar cane harvested in the Carribean, including cane raised on the island of Barbados itself. Mount Gay utilizes two fermentation styles - a closed fermentation using a cultivated yeast and an open fermentation where only the wild yeast present in the atmosphere at the distillery carries out the fermentation duties. The closed fermentation mash is distilled in a column still whereas the open fermentation mash heads to a pot still. Once maturation is complete, Mount Gay blends the column-distilled rum with the pot-distilled rum for the desired product. Speaking of maturation, Mount Gay predominately matures their rum in ex-bourbon casks, but sometimes, as in the case of today’s rum, other cask types are utilized which brings us back to the notion of rum producers offering higher-end products to entice wandering whiskey eyes.

Beginning in 2018, Mount Gay debuted their Master Blender Collection. An annual release of premium expressions of Mount Gay rum that are viewed as pet projects/experiments of the distillery’s master blender. Introduced by Allen Smith and continued today by Trudiann Branker, 2020’s installment of the collection focuses on port casks. Specifically, the accurately named Port Cask Expression features two varieties of rum: column-distilled rum that was aged for 5 years in tawny port casks and pot-distilled rum that was aged for 14 years in American whiskey casks and finished in tawny port casks for 1 year.

I was no stranger to premium rum offerings by the time the Port Cask Expression appeared on my retailer’s shelf. For years my much better half and I have enjoyed the installments of Foursquare’s Exceptional Cask Series, especially those that utilized ex-wine barrel finishing. Further, some of my favorite whiskeys are those that have been partially matured in ex-port barrels, so when I saw the crimson red box of the Mount Gay Port Cask Expression, my interest was immediately piqued. This was not an automatic purchase however. With an asking price flirting with $200, the Port Cask Expression is priced on the high-end of comparable Scotch Single Malts, but perhaps more eye-opening is that Foursquare’s premium offerings typically cost half as much. It took a little over a week to convince myself to take the plunge. Ultimately it was Mount Gay’s reputation combined with the strong port influence and complete transparency in regard to age, bottling strength, and filtration that justified the purchase in my mind.

It was a late Saturday afternoon last summer when I had my first pour of this rum. My expectations were high, but a tinge of doubt crept across my mind as I was removing the shrink-wrap capsule - ‘how can a rum be worth $200 … there’s going to be some disappointment …’. Anticipation quickly replaced doubt however as wave after wave of aroma wafted up from the glass as it was sitting on the counter. Despite my nose being a good distance from the glass, I was being bombarded by vanilla, caramel, raisin, and almonds. To date, only Islay’s peated single malts have delivered such a pronounced aroma upon pouring. My first few sips were overwhelmed by the rum’s high proof, the ethanol washing over my mouth like camera flashes on a gala’s red carpet. Time and water helped tame the ethanol, and once dialed in the rum delivered a near-endless parade of dense, viscous flavors. There are very few spirits I’ve enjoyed that have delivered such a profound experience - the flavors linger so long that the smell, taste and finish seemingly combine into one unified event. By my fourth or so sip, I simply held the glass at eye-level, slightly tilted, and just stared at the remaining liquid for several minutes in absolute awe.

Nose
Molasses, vanilla, almonds roasting in the oven, raisins

Taste
Oak, pepper spice, oily molasses, dark chocolate, prunes/raisins, faint dried cherry. A mouth-coating, ‘greasy’ texture (meant in a positive connotation). For me, the addition of water is mandatory. You can certainly sip the rum at 55% ABV, but the ethanol overwhelms quite a bit of the flavor. My personal sweet-spot was in the 45% (ish) ABV range.

Finish
Oak, pepper spice, port/raisins, molasses and brown sugar. A long finish that lingers with the oak and pepper spice lasting the longest. A hallmark of Barbadian rum is its heavy use of former American whiskey barrels for maturation. American whiskey barrels will deliver a wallop of influence during aging - vanilla, charred oak, brown sugar that all influence the rum itself. Other styles of rum use less potent barrels, but in Barbados, expect a strong American oak influence in their aged rums.

Overall
A masterpiece of a spirit. I am astonished at how beautifully this spirit weaves together the molasses-based rum and the large influence of port. Like gracefully clasping one’s hands together with fingers interleaving each other, the rum and port seamlessly converge and propel this rum to a special place. A rare occurrence where the sum is greater than its parts. This rum’s lofty asking price was a point of fixation and concern entering the experience, but within a few sips I began to feel as though Mount Gay had undercharged for the experience.

In all honesty, penning such an enthusiastically glowing writeup for this rum has created a nagging sense of self-conscious objective guilt in my mind. While I have zero critiques of this rum, I feel there are caveats that must be disclosed on the off-chance anyone reading this feels compelled to plunk down their own hard-earned and procure a bottle of their own. First caveat - this is a rum first, there is never any doubt as to its molasses origins which means no matter how great this rum is, it will not convert those that do not care for the taste of rum when sipped neat. Second caveat - the port-influence is strong so if you like rum but dislike port or port’s influence on distilled spirits, then this rum will not convert you either. Lastly, in my decades of food and beverage explorations, I’ve come to discover that the collective ‘we’ of humanity often experience a divergent set of impressions, opinions, and perspectives for any given object. It is not without precedent that a restaurant or recipe or libation that I adore receives the ‘friend-zoned’ treatment by being deemed merely ‘nice’ by the person I recommended it to. A great paradox in life is that in situations like these, both parties are simultaneously right and wrong; one person’s euphoria is another person’s ‘meh’. All this to say that yes, I adore this rum but that is no guarantee that someone else will (or even consider it ‘good’). My recommendation is to base your purchasing decision on your personal likes and dislikes, not what some rando spews out on the Internet.

A final thank you to Mount Gay. Advocates of rum have long felt that rum should be considered an equal to the revered spirits of Scotch, Cognac, and Bourbon. Releases like the Port Cask Expression provide compelling proof that rum easily deserves a place on the top shelf in the hierarchy of distilled spirits. In fact, the Port Cask Expression can, for some, invert the commonly perceived hierarchy and leave the old guard spirits aspiring to be considered an equal to rum. Until next time, cheers to all.

Singleton of Glendullan 19 Year

 

 

 

Singleton of Glendullan 19 Year (2021 Special Release)
Classification: Single Malt Scotch Whisky
Country: Scotland
Region: Speyside (Dufftown: 57.448N, -3.119W)
Mash Bill: 100% Malted Barley
Strength: 54.6% ABV (109.2° Proof)
Color: Unknown (most likely natural color)
Filtration: Unknown (most likely non-chill filtered)
Maturation: 19 years in ex-bourbon casks, finished for unknown duration in ex-Cognac casks
Price: $186.99 (Total Wine)

Tl;dr summary - An end-of-year splurge inspired by a generous age statement combined with an equally generous bottling strength. The dram starts out impressively with fantastic aromas of cognac, vanilla, almonds, and red apple. The taste requires a bit of dilution (and time) to tame the alcohol punch, but eventually fruits, oak, and pepper spice are revealed. The finish is moderate length with ample oak, pepper spice, and gentle fruit. An impressive whisky with polished packaging and a lofty asking price that could justifiably be a deal-breaker for some.

Well Happy New Year and Happy Burns Night everyone. Being the first post of a new year, I thought it perfectly fitting to open with a bit of pizzazz. Typically I am quite wary when it comes to spending a large sum of money on a single bottle of hooch. For any given distillery/producer, I usually hem and haw and sample cheaper offerings from them before plunking down the big bucks for something from the loftier end of their stable. Today's whisky totally bucks that behavior. When I purchased today's malt, not only had I never had a drop of a single malt from the Glendullan distillery, I knew very little about the distillery other than it was owned and operated by Diageo.

 

In my defense, three of the four motivations for my purchasing decision are laudable - this whisky is 19 years old, an official bottling from the distillery, and the cherry on top - bottled at cask strength. The final motivation is admittedly less noble and typically the purview of the gullible, but I'd be lying if I said the spiffy marketing campaign and glitzy artwork draped over the bottle and its packaging did not stir my desire to purchase. What can I say, I'm a sucker for a sea glass green bottle accentuated by a coral mermaid set against an azure blue sky.

 

All told, Diageo owns 28 malt distilleries in Scotland and this Singleton is one of eight 2021 Special Releases that Diageo produced from their stable of distilleries. All eight offerings are bottled at cask strength and all feature an age statement. The breathtaking entry has to be the senior Lagavulin, but each entry has its own charm. The seven other special releases joining the Singleton are: Cardhu 14 year ($150), Lagavulin 26 year ($2,400), Lagavulin 12 year ($150), Mortlach 13 year ($125), Oban 12 year ($115), Royal Lochnager 16 year ($250), and Talisker 8 year ($115).

I've always been intrigued by the numerous factors that contribute to a particular bottle's price point. There are tangible aspects such as age, bottling strength, and production characteristics, but there are also intangible influences such as brand perception and marketing push that contribute to a bottle's price. There is no tool quite like a spreadsheet to provide a bit of context in such regards and plotting each of the eight 2021 special releases does indeed show some interesting trends. It's no surprise that the 26-year-old Lagavulin is a wild point in terms of comparison. Malts from Islay that are over two decades old are indeed rare, doubly so from a distillery with the brand prestige of Lagavulin. There is simply no getting around the fact that a consumer will pay a significant premium to bring a bottle of long-aged Lagavulin home - low supply, high prestige, and even higher consumer desire will always yield a shockingly large asking price.

When we exclude the old man Lagavulin from the discussion, things become a bit more apples-to-apples:

 

Average MSRP (excluding Lagavulin 26): $154.29

Average $ per Year (excluding Lagavulin 26): $11.66

Average $ per ABV % (excluding Lagavulin 26): $2.73

 

In terms of dollars per year of maturation, it's the Royal Lochnager, Talisker, and 12-year Lagavulin that carry the largest premium. The Talisker and Lagavulin are understandable as both are well established and desired brands that have legions of fans across the globe. Any special release from those two distilleries will be snapped up without hesitation at virtually any price. The Royal Lochnager is interesting as I suspect it's premium is driven by scarcity and uniqueness. Royal Lochnager is by far Diageo's smallest distillery and is typically used in the Johnnie Walker Blue and Black products. As such there is very little Royal Lochnager whisky available to consumers as a standalone product and might explain why its pricing is significantly above the mean.

As for our humble Singleton, it is the best value in terms of dollars per year of age when compared to its special release companions. Being the second lowest bottling strength dings the value prospect when assessing it's bang-for-buck in regard to strength, but I'll take that trade-off for a 19-year-old single malt. Of course it is not a whisky's numerical attributes that shape its stature in the whisky world. For that we need to answer the question 'is this stuff any good?'. For a whisky's legend is made (or shattered) not on a website or retail shelf, but exclusively in the glass from which it is enjoyed.

 

Nose

Immediately reminiscent of Cognac: cocoa, coffee, oak, gentle leather jump out at first. With time, it's barley foundation emerges and it becomes obvious that this is indeed a malt and not a Cognac. Initially there is a fair amount of ethanol punch but once my nose acclimates, almonds, vanilla, gentle orange oil, and barley sugar all waft up from the glass. An absolutely sensational aroma throughout the experience. A+.

 

Taste

When sipped neat, the ethanol overwhelms my palate. This is a 'hot' whisky, a surge of alcohol coats my tongue and overwhelms my ability to pick out most flavors. There is a bit of acclimation where more flavors are perceptible when sipping neat, but for me, this whisky requires water. With water added, oak, apple, barley, dark cocoa, and a gentle black pepper spice are present. An excellent whisky in terms of flavor, but the taste is one notch below the sublime nose.

Finish

Medium to long finish. When sipped neat, the alcohol is the most dominant aspect of the finish, but just as with the taste, water helps the malt's flavors emerge. The oak, almond, black pepper and gentle orange continue from the taste. The black pepper is the longest to linger. The finish is on par with the taste, but does not surpass the taste (or nose) in the experience.

 

Overall

An excellent and enjoyable whisky. Thus far, I've had four pours of this malt and there is no question that for me, this whisky requires the addition of water for full enjoyment as it's just too ethanol-heavy when sipped neat. Of course this is not a complaint, I prize the fact that this malt is bottled at its natural cask strength as it gives the consumer total control over the dilution to their personal preference. For me a quarter-ounce of water for a 1.5 ounce pour was the consensus. This would bring the proof down from the original 54.6% ABV to ~47% ABV. Also praiseworthy, though not officially stated on the label, is my belief that this malt is natural color and has not been chill-filtered (the whisky did become cloudy after the addition of water). 

 

My criticisms are really nits - I wish the finish was a tad longer. I wish the taste and finish were equal to the aroma but both are a whisker below. I wish the price was lower. Speaking of price, perhaps the ultimate compliment I can give is that my enjoyment of this whisky dwarfed my whisky frugality and caused me to lose sight of the fact that I paid nearly $200 for this bottle. Unlike my experience with 21 year old Redbreast, the enjoyment derived from each sip of the Singleton dominated my thoughts rather than a fixation over how much each sip had cost me. Regardless, flirting with $200 is a significant sum of money and one that I feel must be kept at the forefront when discussing all other facets of this malt. 

 

So is this bottle worth the asking price? For me, yes, but only as a one-time purchase. While I do believe this malt is worth the price tag, I do not believe this malt to be unique enough to justify the purchase of a second bottle to squirrel away for future enjoyment. At a minimum I suspect 2022's Special Release of Singleton, assuming there will be one, will be equally enjoyable, even if its production characteristics are different than the 2021 release.

 

I'll leave you with a bit of a teaser - there are expensive bottles of hooch that merit purchasing in bulk. Bottles entirely unique in regard to production and/or quality such that they become time capsules capturing a specific moment never likely to be repeated. Such bottles are genuine treasures, distinct in their character; the phrase 'catching lightning in a bottle' comes to mind. I will be discussing just such a bottle in the very near future, but until then, cheers to all in the new year.