Category Archives: 77 Points

Paul & Philippe Zinck Pinot Blanc 2009

And suddenly the sun came out! Nice temperature so I felt like a nice light and refreshing wine. I have a batch of Pinot Blancs lying around for the white asparagus season, but thought I would give this one a try by itself, for me you never can go wrong with an Alsatian Wine. This Pinot Blanc is made by Domaine Zinck from Eguisheim, Alsace, France. Zinck have four great Grand Crus: Eichberg, Pfersigberg, Goldert and Rangen. The last two I also know from Zind-Humbrecht. Spectacular stuff. This Pinot Blanc is from the “Portrait” line of wines and are made as an introduction to Wine. We call that entry-level. Zinck Pinot Blanc

Color: light yellow with a slight green tint, medium viscosity

Nose: Flowery and half sweet. Meaty and buttery with hints of earth. Quite a “thick” and aromatic nose (lots of yellow fruits), seems sweet at first. Vegetal and herbal, maybe sage. Coastal (the terroir is silty), and fruity, melon-style.

Taste: Syrupy sweet. The acidity is in check. The sweetness and the acidity somehow doesn’t seem to be well married together. Something not quite right and I can not put my finger on it. The fruity melons are here too, and just like the nose, “thick”. Quite some bitterness too, that stays well into the finish. Where it shouldn’t be. Chewy and behind it all sweeter than it appears to be.

Pinot Blanc is not Alsace’s favourite grape variety, and I guess this wine shows why. It is recommended with food, asparagus. Don’t have that here at the moment, but I’ve tried it with a salad, OK and with spicy chicken legs, that was quite good actually. Since the wine is quite thick the Pinot Blanc managed the spicy chicken well. Easily drinkable. I personally didn’t like this as much as a lot of other wines from the region, but it does seem to fare better with food than on its own. Well just a matter of taste really, since my wife did love this on its own and is more than happy to drink the rest of the bottles that are in the cellar.

Points: 77

Undisclosed Distillery 7yo 2005/2012 (51.6%, Kintra, 3rd Confidential Cask, Sherry Butt #900161, 143 bottles)

Still sad Master Quill’s Bowmore Week is over? Don’t worry there will be more weeks and there will be more Bowmores. Not worth crying over spilled Whisky, so no better way than getting right up that horse and moving on. From my stash I picked this “Confidential Cask” bottled by Erik Molenaar a.k.a. Kintra. This is already his third Confidential Cask, a Single Malt Whisky by an undisclosed distillery a.k.a. a “Bastard Malt”. Erik is bound by agreement not to disclose the distillery nor talk about it, so I haven’t bothered asking him. There are rumours though this could be a Glenmorangie since in this series the map on the label points out where the distillery lies or where it’s water source is, and looking at this map, Glenmorangie seems to be the distillery (or Balblair for that matter), still Glenmorangie is geographically more correct. So forget about Bowmore for the time being and let’s have a look at this mystery malt.

Undisclosed Distillery 7yo 2005/2012 (51.6%, Kintra, 3rd Confidential Cask, Sherry Butt #900161, 143 bottles)Color: Gold, with a slight pinkish hue.

Nose: Malty, with toffee. Cookie dough, yoghurt and vanilla ice-cream. Slightly woody and a hint of “sourness”. Flinty, like fireworks, again, only a hint. Very much, young yet creamy. Old rainwater and dust, and the Sherry gave off some pleasant funkiness to the Whisky.

Taste: A bit hot, woody sourness, hints of red fruit and raisins and quite some wood after only seven years. Especially when it had some time to breathe the wood plays a great role, without being dominant. On the palate this Whisky seems a little bit disjointed and the finish is all about wood and a strange kind of sourness (like stale beer). Throughout the whole experience a little bit of bitterness from the wood is present. On another level there is some sweet creaminess to it and on yet another level, there is the fruit from the Sherry.

As said before, this is rumoured to be Glenmorangie (or even Balblair). Especially if its Glenmorangie, I can understand why Erik chose to bottle it, because indie Glenmorangies are very rare. Even if you don’t have to possibility to print the distillery on the label, people who want to know will somehow find out, or think so, will take an interest. We don’t know what this is. All we know is that this is a young whisky, that doesn’t seem to be finished yet. On the palate the flavors haven’t “married” yet. Definitely not my favorite Kintra bottling.

Points: 77

Tarapacá Chardonnay Terroir Piritas 2011

Last time we tried a Chardonnay from Languedoc, made by a Burgundian winemaker. All French thus. This time let’s fly halfway across the world and have a taste of Chilean Chardonnay. This Chardonnay comes from Maipo Valley that has a cool climate, granite soil and is located near the pacific. Like I said before, Chardonnay is an easy grape variety and can be found all over the world.

Viña Tarapacá, as it is called today, was founded in 1874 by Francisco de Rojas y Salamanca. It was then named Viña de Rojas. In 1892 the winery got a new owner, Manuel Zavala-Meléndez and gave it its current name. Today the winery is owned by Chili’s largest matchstick producer!

Tarapacá Chardonnay Terroir Piritas 2011 Color: White wine

Nose: Sweet and fresh, typical Chardonnay. Promises a nice balance between the acidity and the sweetness. Estery, meaty and flinty with a slight floral perfume. Dried apricots and maybe some pear, nectarine and banana. The fruity sweetness is quite thick. Licorice.

Taste: A dirty kind of sweetness. Its acidity is quite raw and different from what I expected, but then again, this is no Chablis. Quite good when it get in the mouth, but the middle and especially the finish are not very strong. The acidity is matched with a slight hint of bitterness which takes away the elegance. It’s a bit like a Roter Vitamin C tablet. This still needs some work.

At first this appears to be a pretty decent Chardonnay, but for me it has more than one rough edge. The sweetness is a little bit strange, and the acids are not refined. Sometimes it can attack you, hidden away behind the initial fruity sweetness. Add to that the hint of bitterness in the finish. Still, it’s pretty good, but not excellent. There ís a lot going on, but to me it almost tastes like a work in progress. We’re on  our way, but not quite there yet. Especially the second part could have been better. The wine has an ABV of 14%.

Points: 77

And yes, this wine was also provided by Richard, muchas gracias!

Timmermans Framboise (4%, 25 cl)

The sun is out, and it finally starts to look like summer. Just the right day to pull out all of my beers from storage and have a look what is still around. Time to pick a nice refreshment for our short-lived summer. Between all those Catholic Beers I have, protruded this pink bottle. This is a Timmermans Framboise or Raspberry flavored beer. Had they used real raspberries, the beer would have been priceless, so Raspberry juice was used in stead. Also Sugar and artificial sweetener was added.

Timmermans FramboiseTimmermans is part of Anthony Martin. Those of you that read my beer reviews know that I like to age my beers, but beers like this (fruit), hardly gain anything from ageing. That doesn’t mean you can’t but why should you. The beer I used for this review was hardly aged.

Color: Red and murky, not a lot of (almost white) foam.

Nose: Heated raspberry compote. Very, very fruity and sweet-smelling. It almost overpowers the Lambic beer, but if you try hard it’s there. Probably too much fruit syrup is used.

Taste: Again a whole lot of sweet raspberry. Sweet it is! Fruit syrup but with a nice acidic touch, I guess comes from the Lambic. After the initial sweetness the beer is still quite refreshing. I love Lambic beers, but still this is quite a simple beer, to enjoy with an empty mind, not caring ’bout notin’.

To sum up, Raspberry syrup (too much used), added Sugar and artificial sweetener (why so much), simple yet enjoyable.

Points: 77

Smokehead (43%, Ian MacLeod, Circa 2012)

After the extremely rare and expensive Glenfiddich (what?) I reviewed earlier, time for a more affordable and more of a heavy hitting dram. Sitting inside, hearing the wind outside, it seems an appropriate choice. Smokehead is a Islay Single Malt Whisky marketed by Ian MacLeod, who also have their Chieftain’s series of Single Malts and also own the Glengoyne Distillery, so they know their way around Whisky.

I said marketed, since I have to admit I like the look of this bottle very much, or have a look at the special website they made for this bottle alone. Yes it’s a standard Scotch Liquor Bottle, but keep in mind it’s a very affordable Whisky, but the rest looks great. Just look at the lettering and look of it all. I don’t care much for the choice of words though 😉

Color: Light Gold.

Nose: Peat, peated malt, citrus and then smoke. Peat smoke and paper smoke. Very clean. Clay and butter, hot butter like you get from smelling popcorn. Spicy smoke, like burning off your kitchen cabinet with all your dried herbs in it, or the smell you get when walking outside in a winter evening and smelling all those wood fires coming from chimneys. Still it comes across as very honest, young and untouched. The nose is great, no doubt about it, hope it tastes as good.

Taste: Smoke and burnt wood. Dry peat, very young and un-complex, but also a bit un-balanced. Ash and a stunning absence of saltness. The best Islay Whiskies I know always have a sort of hidden sweetness to it, that this example lacks. It has some sweetness, but it comes across as diluted. Don’t get me wrong, 43% ABV is all right, but tastewise there isn’t that much happening here, which makes it a good first kiss if you’re interested in peated malts. Did I mention the rather short finish?

The bottle looks great, but I liked the nose even better. Tastewise it’s a wee bit to thin for my taste, and lacking some Islay components, you get from more aged Islay Whiskies (the sweetness and the saltness). Excellent choice for those who like peat and smoke, but also excellent for peatheads or Islay-o-philes that have lost at the stock market. At this price and this quality, it’s the Johnny Walker Red Label of the peated malts!

Points: 77

Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo du Maire

It’s a rainy day today, grey and bleak  and I am a little bit under the weather too. Luckily I have some notes lying around I can work with. Otherwise not actually a nice day to go out and have a smoke. But a nice day to put some Art Blakey on. I have A Night in Tunesia & Moanin’ to warm me up and write something about Le Hoyo du Maire.

Compared to the picture below, my Hoyo du Maire is much older. Just have a look below at the ancient box code. Mine is without band. Bands on the Hoyo du Maire were placed somewhere around 2005. Another difference that is very obvious is that my Hoyo du Maire is a lot darker than this one and looks less rustic. It looks a lot smoother. Another thing you don’t get from the picture below is how small it really is. For me it’s almost cigarette-size, and you will never believe how small the wooden box with 25 cigars is. It’s unbelievably cute! Today it comes in Sliding Lid Boxes (SLB’s) with 25 or 50 cigars or in cardboard pack’s with 5 cigars.

Hoyo de Monterrey Le Hoyo du Maire (30 x 100mm, Entreacto, Small Panatela, Box code FR NNSR)

Color & Looks: Maduro and looks very elegant and well-built. Oily.

A cru: Mocha, dry and chocolaty. Hints of paper and altogether mild.

Taste: Oily wrapper and salty on the lips. Just lit and it tastes immediately great. Very woody, but a great overall taste. The wood becomes a little bit sour but the cigar still has good balance. The draw and the smoke are good. It’s a sour-woody and spicy cigar. Ash is light grey with some whites. As often, ash has tiny white spots. It’s very thin so it is stronger than your usual Hoyo. A cigar to ‘sip’, otherwise it will burn too hot. Sometimes you do get small whiffs of…fireworks. The development is linear, still it does have a lot of character for such a small cigar. The draw diminished in the second half, but rolling it between my fingers solved this minor problem.

I don’t know how newer versions hold up to this, since this is really well aged. I can’t tell you what ageing did for this cigar untill I can taste a new one. I don’t think such a small cigar will have to age for a long time, to get to a decent level. In the end it seems somewhat stronger than Hoyo’s usually are, but this is never overpowering. Ideal very short smoke.

Points: 77

Vegas Robaina Clásico

A very new brand, established just in 1997 by Don Alejandro Robaina, one of the best tobacco farmers on the island of Cuba. Don Alejandro lived a full life and died of cancer in 2010 being 91 years old. Who said the Cigars are not good for you? The major part of his crop was used for wrappers, he was thát good. Today this multi-local brand with minor market share has only three expressions left, since two of the five expressions were deleted.

  1. Don Alejandro, a Double Corona, 49 x 194mm.
  2. Famoso, a Hermoso no.4 (Corona Extra), 48 x 127mm (almost a Robusto sized cigar).
  3. Unico, a Pirámides, 52 x 156mm.

This year, probably to save good tobacco for other Habanos brands, and due to the popularity of fat cigars, the other two relatively slender Vegas Robaina expressions were discontinued. Today anything under ø48 is considered ‘thin’.

  1. Familiar, a Corona, 42 x 142mm, and last but not least,
  2. Clásico, a Cervantes or Lonsdale, 42 x 165mm.

I’ll have a look at the latter one.

Vegas Robaina Clásicos (42 x 165mm, Cervantes, Lonsdale, Box code unknown)

Color & Looks: Colorado, on the light side of colorado actually. Rustic looking, no large veins. Firm and good build.

A cru: Deep tobacco smell. Leafy like nice old books. It also has a mocha or chocolaty side to it. Even unlit it oozes strength, but still in a way it smells fresh and green. Sandalwood. Freshly cut, more chocolate and powdery dry. Good first impression, elegant maybe (due to some perfume). It’s not salty on the lips, but maybe a bit soapy. Mind you it’s not soapy in the taste. Burn is uneven around the vein, otherwise burn is all right. An unbelievable dark ash and thick impenetrable smoke.

Taste: Already after a centimetre or so, it’s obvious that this isn’t a beginners cigar. Its tarry and very spicy. Hints of petrol. Wow, heavy cigar, that goes wonderfully well with water and this made my espresso taste like something for children. I guess that if you want this to accompany a drink, you should pair this with a very heavy rum, a sweet one perhaps. Lots of smoke. Some kind of industrial grade? It’s funny it’s so heavy-duty since it smelled so elegant a cru. Ash is gray, dark grey and black, with countless tiny light grey spots. No white ash whatsoever. Some plastics and popcorn in the finish.

I found it very heavy and very linear in developement. I knew beforehand that this would be very strong, but not as much as this. It has enough nicotine to last you for a week. One plus though. It doesn’t leave a three-day (bad) taste in your mouth.

Points: 77

The Balvenie 10yo “Founder’s Reserve” (40%, OB, Circa 2003)

And here is another entry-level whisky by the same owners as Glenfiddich. I guess Glenfiddich was (not anymore) the poor man’s Single Malt Whisky and The Balvenie is the more posh one. Even Glenfiddich started to churn out Vintage Releases from the seventies, that have a heft price tag. Balvenie makes about half the amount of Whisky Glenfiddich makes and with that still is a top ten seller. So William Grant & Sons have two golden goose’s on hand.

When looking around. and being new to Single Malts I almost fell in love by the shape of the bottle and really liked the way their labels looked. Not a lot to choose then. There was this 10yo (Founders Reserve), a 12yo (Double Wood), a 15yo (Single Cask), a 21yo (Port Wood) and a 25yo (Single Cask). And there was one limited oddity, the 17yo (Islay Cask). Nothing more. Today like with others there is more choice than ever. Lets have a look at the cheapest Balvenie, the 10yo “Founders Reserve”…

Color: Gold

Nose: Perfumy and powdery. Almonds and lemons. Apple pie. Hint of wood. Creamy. banana and cookie dough. Syrupy. Sweet and light.

Taste: Sweet and very fruity. Cardboard. Very short finish. Sweet but very light. Hints of smoke? Hints of wood and wood-shavings that give it just a little bit of character. Vanilla ice-cream.

First of all I have to admit it was a very long time since I’ve had those standards like this one and Glenfiddich 12yo. I almost never have a whisky that’s 40% ABV, or it has to be a very old Gordon & MacPhail bottling. So I’ve become very much detached of these standards. With that I may become a bit decadent and in memory unappreciative of these whiskies. Having said that I have to admit that these two whiskies surprised me a lot with their quality and taste. Nice stuff. There is one big if. These type of malts seems to me are so easily drinkable, that you would drink them the way you drank lemonade when you were a kid. These types of malts make alcoholics out of us 😉

Compared to Glenfiddich 12yo “Special Reserve”, both are different styles. This is sweet and fruity. Nothing more. Glenfiddich is more honest in style, more of a Lowlander I would say. I thought Glenfiddich was better.

Points: 77

Petrus Gouden Tripel (7.5%, 33 cl)

After the fabulous Aged Pale, lets see if this Golden Tripel is any good. Personally I like Tripels a lot, so I have good hopes for this. What’s a “Tripel”? Well fermentation takes place in three stages. Main fermentation and second fermentation we all know, and the third stage is fermentation in the bottle. Tripel, means three, but there are a lot more explanations for the word.

So there you have it. Tripels are usually part of the Abbey and Trappist beers. Petrus is brewed by Bavik in Bavikhove Belgium. Bavik started out in 1894. Even though the range is named after Saint Peter, Bavik isn’t an Abbey or even a Trappist beer. This Tripel is just made in an Abbey style. It also isn’t a coincidence that this Tripel is reminiscent of the heavy blond ales like Duvel, because it once was one of those (Cuvée de St. Armand).

Color: Beautiful gold, like a nectar of the gods.

Nose: Fresh. Typical Tripel. High in alcohol, warming. Citrussy and malty, but that’s it, there isn’t any more.

Taste: Fresh and citrussy as in lemons and limes. Yeast and a slightly bitter and drying finish. But again not very complex.

It’s all right. An example of a typical Tripel. I prefer other Tripels, which will be reviewed eventually. After the Pale Ale this is a bit disappointing. Maybe I had too high expectations for this? It reminds me a bit of a Duvel, but Duvel is better (for me). Don’t get me wrong, this still is a pretty decent beer, but for me it doesn’t add anything to the world of the Tripel. Actually, maybe this isn’t even an Abbey-style Tripel. But a heavy Blond Ale with a third fermentation in the bottle (which a lot of people call a Tripel). It just has to decide which one of the two it really is.

Points: 77

Bourbon Week – Day 1: Labrot & Graham Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select (43.2%, OB, Batch #49, 70 cl)

Here at Master Quill I’ve explored some Scottish Whiskies and I think it’s time to expand a little. There is a lot more out there and I feel it’s time for me to look into what America is capable of. The journey started for me with a Bourbon, as can be read here. Since I don’t have any Tennesee Whiskies, or even bottles from micro distilleries, I will focus for the time being on Bourbon, with the odd Rye-Whiskey thrown in for good measure.

What is Bourbon you might ask. The Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits state that Bourbon must be:

  1. made from a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn,
  2. aged in new, charred-oak barrels,
  3. distilled to no more than 80% ABV,
  4. entered into the barrel for aging at no more than 62.5% ABV,
  5. bottled at a minimum of 40% ABV.

It is clear that Bourbon has to be aged, but no one knows for how long. Also there are more rules for a Bourbon to be called Straight, but we’ll get to that another time.

Lets move on to the next candidate. The first Bourbon we will explore is the small batch Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, Woodford Reserve. This bourbon is made by Brown-Forman, but marketed under the name of the previous owners from long long ago: Labrot & Graham. The Distillery was built near Versailles (Kentucky) in 1812, but distilling activities started as early as 1797. Brown-Forman owned this distillery previously from 1940-1960 and now owns it again from 1996 onwards. The first batches were distilled ‘elsewhere’. Whisky is distilled partly in Scottish Pot Stills and partly from Column Stills from their Early Times plant in Shively (Kentucky). Besides this there are also Woodford versions made for the Kentucky Derby at a slightly higher ABV (45.2%, I don’t know if there are more differences, besides the illustrations on the bottle). There is also a small Masters Collection series and now a new Double Oaked version.

Color: Copper/Orange

Nose: Very Nice. Sweet/creamy character with spicy oak. Candied yellow fruits. Apples (skin), raisins and again some wood. Honey, almonds and cinnamon. Distant smoke.

Taste: Dry, more like spicy rye and spicy wood. Acetone and toast. Toffee and popcorn. Very elegant and nothing is in excess here. First a solvent like and slightly bitter finish, but after that somewhat late; a creamy finish and mouthfeel. And even later than that the toast from the cask. This really unwinds slowly. Still its a bit unbalanced, and thin. I would have bottled this at a higher ABV.

Pretty decent bourbon. But be careful, because for me this isn’t always as nice. Some day I like it more than on others.

Points: 77