January 31st, 2010

The 16th Annual Malt Advocate Whisky Awards: an overview

John Hansell

The Malt Advocate Whisky Awards exist to recognize excellence in the world of whisky. Now in their sixteenth year, these awards are the oldest and longest-running annual whisky awards program. They honor the world’s greatest whiskies and distilleries, and the individuals who make and promote them.

The only requirement: to be eligible for this year’s awards, products must have been sold in the U.S. during the 2009 calendar year. Please keep this in mind when reading about our award winners.

As I mentioned in a previous post, for the first time ever, we will be announcing our awards here, starting tomorrow, before they are eventually published in Malt Advocate magazine. You can read about the schedule of the awards, and our reasoning for publishing the awards via this blog, here. Each day, from February 1st-11th, I will post up the award at 0700 Eastern Time.

I would like to ask that, if you have any general questions about the contest itself, you use this posting to ask your questions. When I post up each award category and winner, let’s focus our comments on the actual whisky, distillery, etc., receiving the award.  Thanks.

Category: Administrative, Awards, Malt Advocate Mag Tags: 4 Comments

January 30th, 2010

Review: Smoking Ember “Pure Malt”

John Hansell

Smoking Ember, 40 %, $40
(A blend of malt whiskies). Big and smoky, but with a rich, balancing, malty underbelly. Tarry rope, leafy bonfire, rooty peat, burnt licorice, smoked seaweed, coal ash, and vanilla-tinged malt, all with emerging brine, subtle Spanish olive and a hint of ginger. A robust, yet well-rounded, Islay-style whisky with a pleasing oily texture. I do wish it had a higher strength for a little more attitude, though.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 83

Category: Reviews, Scotch whisky Tags: 14 Comments

January 29th, 2010

Taiwan whisky: better than Scotch whisky?

John Hansell

That’s what one competition declared. It was published in the Times on Monday, and I’ve been meaning to post something up. Read the full article here.

It was a competition that took place in Edinburgh and included several three year old whiskies, including the new English whisky (from St. Georges), blended scotch, a Bruichladdich whisky, and a Taiwan whisky (Kavalan). There were a list of judges, headed by veteren whisky writer, Charles MacLean. The Taiwan whisky was the winner.

Read the article. Tell us what you think. Was it a fair competition? Was it a misleading competition? Should competitions like this even take place?

Category: Scotch whisky, Taiwan whisky, Writers, competitions Tags: , , 37 Comments

January 28th, 2010

When your bottle (and heart) breaks…

John Hansell

Okay, it’s time to get the box of tissues and tell us about that special bottle of yours that broke (or was stolen, lost, burned, emptied into a punchbowl, etc.)

I already told you the sad story about how my rather generous sample of White Bowmore was crushed back in 2008. You can read about it here. I’m still getting over that one.

How about you? Has anything like this ever happened to you? If so, take your shoes off, lie down on our virtual couch, and tell us all about it.

It’s good therapy and, as the saying goes,  “misery loves company.”

Category: Humor, Opinions, Scotch whisky, Whisky storage Tags: 51 Comments

January 27th, 2010

Five Maker’s Mark bourbons in front of me, and the Master Distiller on the phone

John Hansell

Yes, you read that correctly. There’s only one Maker’s Mark bourbon on the market, but today I tasted five different ones side-by-side, along with Maker’s Mark Master Distiller Kevin Smith. He was on the other end of the phone, tasting along with me.

(Scotch drinkers: don’t leave. You will find this interesting too!)

As I posted here and here last week, Maker’s Mark will be introducing a new bourbon, probably around June. This is BIG news, considering that there has been only one Maker’s Mark bourbon on the market for many years. 

While enjoyable, I sometimes feel that Maker’s Mark is too smooth–too easy to drink. (This is partly because it is a bourbon made with wheat instead of the rye you will find in most bourbons.)

I have been trying to get them to introduce a new bourbon. I know they can make a great bourbon to complement the existing “Red Wax” Maker’s, because they already did! It was their (now extinct) “Black Wax” Maker’s Mark called Maker’s Mark “Select”, which was sold in Duty Free and certain export markets. I really enjoyed that bourbon. In fact, I still have a bottle. (See picture below.)

So, I was thrilled when Kevin called me up and told me they’re coming out with a new product and that he wanted me to taste a sample of it together with him. (He sounded pretty thrilled too!) As I mentioned in my previous post, he told me that this new bourbon is essentially the current Maker’s Mark  that has been aged several more months in barrels with toasted/seared staves inserted into the barrels. (They took the whiskey out, put the staves in, and then put the whiskey back in.)

He sent me a sample last week. This past Saturday afternoon, we tasted it together, next to the current Maker’s Mark. I was in my “tasting room”, he was on the other end of the phone at the distillery.

Before we tasted the whiskey, he said he was looking for four things in this new Maker’s:

  1. A pleasant, sweet, toasted oak aroma
  2. Full of flavor, creamy, and delicous. Strong, but flavorful.
  3. Soft enough to hold on the mouth at 94 proof (the intended bottle proof) without too much alcohol burn
  4. A long finish that’s not bitter.

Was there an noticeable impact on the whiskey from the additional aging in barrels containing seared oak staves? Absolutely! The aroma was rich with layered sweetness (honey, vanilla, caramel, and light toffee), along with more traditional Maker’s aromas.

The palate also was much fuller–those seared staves were once again coming through. Everything was progressing nicely until about midway through the palate all the way to the finish. That’s when I noticed the oak really begin to kick in, to the point where I felt it began to dominate the entire flavor profile, becoming quite dry, spicy, and resinous.

In my opinion, the experiment went too far. The oak impact on the finish was too much.

So, what did I tell Kevin? The truth. I said that I though he succeeded on his first three objectives but, in my opinion, not on the fourth one.

I reminded Kevin that I was just one person and that he should get other opinions. I felt badly and, being the great guy that he is, he took my constructive criticism graciously.

I was about to blog about this the next day when he called me up and asked me to hold off. He said he realized that the sample he sent me was not a “finished” product. It was only rough-filtered to remove the chunks. He wanted to send me a “polished” (carbon-filtered) version, along with a different experiment (one with fewer staves) and also a sample of the old Black Wax release for comparison.

Fast forward to this afternooon, and the five Maker’s samples, and Kevin on the other end of the phone. (I was in New York on business Monday and Tuesday.)  In front of me I had the current Red Wax Maker’s Mark, the previous sample he sent me, and the three new ones. (He wouldn’t tell me which ones were which. They were identified by the letters A, B, and C.)

My thoughts on the three new ones? It was easy to pick the Black Wax sample. It’s flavor profile is very different than the rest. It’s been several years since I last tasted it, but I remember it well.

Of the remaining two, one was almost as intense on the finish as the first sample he sent me the week before. Kevin disclosed afterwards that it was another ”rough-filtered” experiment–this time with fewer staves. 

But with the last one, the oak influence was scaled back, which I though was an improvement. There was better balance, and the oak wasn’t so intense on the finish. Interestingly, this was the same whiskey as the first sample he sent last week. The only difference is that it was carbon-filtered (or as Kevin says, “polished”). The filtering actually mellowed out the intensity of the oak.

How about that for a change? These days, when everyone is talking about not chill-filtering their whiskey to allow more flavor to come through, here’s an example where it actually helps.

I suspect Kevin will be tinkering a lot with the whiskey during the coming weeks (especially with the “polishing”). And I am certain that he’ll be getting feedback from more people too.

To be honest, of the five Maker’s Mark bourbons that I sampled, I still liked the extinct Black Wax whiskey the best. It’s a richer, deeper, more mature version of the current Red Wax Maker’s, and the oak–and the other flavors–are nicely balanced from beginning to end. But that “polished” sample I tasted today was gaining ground.

Tinker away, Kevin. Tinker away. I’m looking foward to tasting the final product. And I’m not alone.

Category: Bourbon, Breaking news, New Releases Tags: 38 Comments

January 27th, 2010

Review: Edradour “Ballechin (#4), 46%, $100

John Hansell

Edradour “Ballechin (#4)”, 46%, $100
I first wrote about this whisky here last fall. It’s the fourth release of peated Edradour single malt Scotch whisky. This time, it’s aged in Oloroso sherry casks. (6,000 bottles released, but only 900 to the U.S.). There’s a lot going on in this whisky. Yeah, it’s still a little on the young side, but what it lacks in maturity is compensated by a dynamic youthful complexity. A distinctive whisky, with coal tar, damp kiln smoke, caramelized fruit, smoked almond, walnut, licorice stick and maple-cured bacon. Youthful, sweet, smoky, lingering finish. I’m looking forward to future releases.

Advanced Malt Advocate magazine rating: 84

Category: New Releases, Reviews, Scotch whisky Tags: , 32 Comments

January 26th, 2010

Yet another misleading Scotch (and American) whisky article by a major publication

John Hansell

This time it’s Forbes. You can read the full story here.

As I was reading through the article, I kept saying “That’s misleading. That’s not really true. That’s not fair.”

Read the article. Do you see anything misleading? If so, which statement is it? I’m in meetings most of the day, but will chime in later.

Category: Bourbon, Media, Scotch whisky Tags: , , , 41 Comments

Older Posts »

Malt Advocate magazine is the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.

Find out more