Rafael González Panatela Extra

Here is a cigar that’s with me for a long time. I bought this box seven or eight years ago, so this had a good chance to age well. Still, this is a Panatela, usually a cigar people buy to smoke quickly and do not give it a chance to let is age. Hey, but I did! Rafael González is a very small brand, that has always been known for a very good Lonsdale or Corona Extra. Now only this Panatela Extra, a Petit Corona and a Perla are made. All small cigars.

Cuban Rafael González Panatela Extra (36 x 127mm, Vegueritos, Short Panatela, Box Code ORE JUN 04)

Color and Looks: Colorado with a big green spot. (It was the only one in the box with a green spot). One larger vein, otherwise smooth surface and no frays. Feels firm.

A cru: Nice ‘old’ smell. Well aged. Nothing overpowering. The foot smells great. With cedar, leather and old books.

Taste: Draw was ok, a bit heavy at first. Great smoke that’s a bit sour. Woody and well rounded out, very balanced. Ageing did this cigar well. Mild smoke. Draw now ok. Mocha, milk chocolate mousse. Firm white ash. Easy, uncomplicated smoke. Again the second-hand smoke smells great. Still it’s not overly complex. Ash falls off rather quickly. The whole taste is on the dry side, woody, cedar, it would have been nicer if it had a creamy component.

Almost halfway its grassy, cool and I detect something chemical, but I can’t put my finger on it. Predominantly white ash with some grey thrown in. After the halfway point the wrapper started to crack. Later I found out that the binder was locally folded and wanted to unfold itself. All this without any problems in draw. The cigar keeps giving you a lot of smoke.

Than the last third, and boy what a turn! When the first part of the cigar is very mild and tasty, the last third is extremely strong. It does have its merits but if you are an inexperienced smoker, this part is the part that turns you green! (I’ve seen it happen to someone at work, with this cigar when it was younger). The strength is well countered by a good coffee, but without is it is extremely drying and a bit harsh. Heavy on nicotine. The ash turns brown so you’ll even have a visual aide in recognizing the last third…

This cigar tastes great with double roasted coffee and also does very well with water. I didn’t try it with anything alcoholic, because the cigar doesn’t call for it. It doesn’t need anything really, it does very well on its own. Beware of the last third! I’m writing this the next day and I still have the taste of the last third firmly embedded in my mouth.

76 Points

P.S. Both guys are really called Rafael González. If you turn out to be one of them, I hope you let me use these pictures.

Craigellachie 1982/1999 (61.6%, Scott’s Selection)

And here is another whisky from my lectern. This time an old (bottled in 1999) Craigellachie from Scott’s Selection. The people who brought us the fabulous Longmorns from 1971. Therefore I always have a soft spot for these guys. This Craigellachie was opened on our whisky trip to Switzerland. What I will never forget was the foul smell this whisky gave off when the bottle was first opened, (but tasted good). That was unbelievable. Very soon after that I found that the bad smell was quickly gone and getting better with time. The bottle has some 30 cl left now, so let’s see how this will perform now. The initial score was 83 points.

Color: White wine.

Nose: fresh, dirty ánd clean. Dirty in the sense that it has some hints of asphalt, tar, sweat and mud from a moat. I hesitate to say it, but it has hints of a good fart. But after all those niceties it shows to be a very clean bourbon cask smell. Lemons and some hay with a nice body to it, and no, it’s not a Lowlander. Still all of this fits together well, so you might want to call this ‘balanced’. I like it (now). To me it does not smell too much alcoholic considering the high ABV.

Taste: Sweet and something like Kirsch with some mocha. Spicy but not woody. Apples. Stays sweet, but fortunately not that sickening heavy sugary sweetness you sometimes encounter, no, this sweetness is just perfect. Maybe not the most complex whisky around but still very enjoyable. Just slightly unbalanced in the finish. Fortunately it has some great staying power.

A great one to drink when playing cards, even with this ABV. Don’t bring too much money to the table though, because some shots of this will lose you your money. At least you enjoyed a nice whisky in the process. The ‘stink’ that was there when opening the bottle is now completely gone, or maybe turned in something more fitting to the taste. So here’s another lesson for us all. A lot of whiskies do need time ánd air. A lot of them just benefit from some oxidation. So be brave and leave the cork off for a while…

Points: 85

Bladnoch 8yo (55%, OB, Beltie Label)

This should turn out to be a very interesting review. If not for you, than certainly for me. Mr Bladnoch, Raymond Armstrong has a lot of fans, just have a look at the forum Bladnoch has. When looking around, this 8yo is considered to be very nice. Also, when you have a look at the average score for this bottle on Whiskybase it turns out to be 86.5 points (8 ratings).

I mention all this, because my bottle of 8yo was officially opened at a gathering of my whisky club last saturday and this Bladnoch was considered to be the worst of the day/evening! Auch! So I gave it a few days and will taste it again now in all tranquility (only some Flower Kings on the stereo). What is wrong, is the whisky bad, or were we doing something else than a proper tasting saturday? We’ll soon find out…

Color: Gold

Nose: Malty and definitively nothing wrong at first nosing. Hint of smoke and butter. Grassy. It smells like it has a more than a light body (for a Lowlander), clean and honest. The butter evolves over time. Mr. Brilleman of the Dutch Whisky Information Centre (WICN), thought us that this is a distillation error, (which sometimes can smell nice). It’s not overpowering so no problem here for me.  Hints of sour wood and powdery. Also slightly fruity. It smells like it will be very sweet and buttery.

Taste: Starts very strangely, like new make, and some woody spice. A little bit soapy and fatty. Sure there are some grassy notes, but not as I’d come to expect from a Lowlander. It’s like the grass turns a bit bitter. I find the taste to be unbalanced to boot, and seems to me as if some feints that found their way into the cask aren’t completely transformed by ageing. I guess this should have been in the cask for a longer while. I also don’t detect any citrussy notes which would make the whisky more refreshing.

After giving the whisky some time to breathe it gets somewhat more balanced and friendlier, some nice spices shine through, with just the right amount of wood. It just doesn’t shed its new-make-and-wood finish.

Adding water added even more balance to the nose, and that’s definitively all right. The palate however got even more simple. Fatty wood and slightly bitter. I’m glad most people like this, because Raymond deserves his success with this own distillation of Bladnoch since the take over. This unfortunately just wasn’t for me. But I’ll find me another one…

Points: 77

By the way the Beltie label should mean this was from Bourbon Barrels. (The Sheep label was used for Hogsheads). Sometimes, both labels were used for Sherry Butts though.

May 25, 2015 [UPDATE]. Now that the bottle is almost empty I feel I have to add something to my additional review. Reading back my notes, the nose is pretty much the same, but I feel the taste has changed, or maybe I have changed. The taste is more balanced, still buttery, but sweet and better integrated. The new make is no longer there. Fresh oak, giving spice and grass. Quite a transformation when it got a long time to breathe. Hurray! First time around it wasn’t for me, and I tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it. I’m happy I still have it. It came ’round nicely. With water the grass and spice got even better and a honeyed note enters the fold, Nice!

New score: 83

Oud Zottegems Bier (6.2%, 33 cl)

What catches the eye with this beer is the statement: “bier met smaakevolutie” thus stating that this is a beer with an evolution in taste. Great! I love that in my drink. Evolution.

Oud Zottegems Bier is made by the Crombé brewery in Zottegem Belgium established around 1800 and is called a (sour) brown beer. To be frank. The installations of Crombé are crap and worn out, so the beer is really made by Strubbe in Ichtegem upholding the original traditions.

Color: Murky brown, not much foam.

Nose: Muddy yeast and toffee. Malt.

Taste: Slightly sour, which adds to the complexity and balance. To be appreciated here. Very tasty and carbonated feel. Toffee with a hint of banana and spice. Mocha and slightly bitter. Citrus.

Ehhh didn’t catch the evolution there… but it has its complexity.

Well some tips then. It is said that this beer get better when you put it in your cellar for a while. Mine was lagered and was quite nice.

I would say. Drink this beer! It’s very nice ánd nearly extinct. It has become a very regional beer and deserves a lot of attention. Losing this would be a shame. I’m definitively buying this again, but sure am curious for the Grand Cru version of this. So thumbs up and a well-earned:

Points: 82

Shepherd Neame Spitfire (4.5%, 500 ml)

And now for a completely different beer. This time something from the oldest brewer in Britain. Sheperd Neame from Faversham, Kent founded in 1698. Spitfire is a cask conditioned bitter that came onto the market in 1990 to commemorate the Battle of Britain. This bottle of britain is named for the famous fighter aircraft from the second world war. The beer also has a different kind of advertising than we are used to of which I only give you a few, but there’s a lot more. Let’s move on to the beer, shall we?

Color: Copper, Amber, not a lot of foam.

Nose: Fresh, it almost has no scent at first, certainly malt but after that we’re in the twilight zone. Hard to tell what else there is.

Taste: Thin (probably the low ABV). Fresh, summery ánd bitter. This bitterness once tasted, never leaves and dominates even the finish. The body is light, hoppy and malty. The middle and the finish make this less summery, although I guess this will do well as a thirst quencher on a terrace looking at people passing by.

In the end I found this to be very easy, not to say very simple. For me even though it isn’t very bitter, still the bitterness dominates the light palate. Maybe that’s why they call this a bitter.

Points: 68

Petrus Aged Pale (7.3%, 11.2 fl.oz.)

Still nice weather and too hot for writing blogs, so hereby I apologize to my readers that it took a few days for a new review. This time a review of beer brewed by Bavik in Belgium called Petrus Aged Pale. This beer was initially intended only for the US market, hence the typical warnings on the label, even though I bought this bottle in Belgium. This Aged Pale is considered by many to be Bavik’s best beer (and thus compared with Rodenbach Grand Cru). It is made with pale malt only and lagered for two to two and a half years in oak casks. Funnily enough its style is the same as with the Rodenbach. So this can be considered to be a “white” red beer.

Color: Gold

Nose: Announces acidity, yellow fruits, apricots and pear (not the skin).

Taste: Sour and woody. Refreshing. Citrussy and is almost a white beer (but it isn’t). Herbal and grassy, and a woody finish.

Initially you might say that it’s simple, sour and very refreshing, so it fits the summer day profile. But when given some attention and your ability to work on it for a while, this simple beer let’s you know it has a lot more going for it. It awards you with a lot more complexity than you would say at first. It is close to a Rodenbach but in my opinion, better balanced and way more complex. You just have to work it a bit. For me this is better than the classic Rodenbach, but I’ll have to give the Rodenbach Grand Cru a go. This Petrus could be an acquired taste, but one I like a lot.

Points: 84

Glenfarclas 42yo 1967/2010 ‘Probably Speysides Finest Distillery’ (50%, Douglas Laing, Old Malt Cask, Sherry Butt, DL REF 6245, 385 bottles)

And here’s yet another Speysider and not just any Speysider but an example of Speyside’s finest distillery…probably. Just consider the statement for a moment (maybe not if you’re called Luc). There’s also Macallan, Longmorn and Strathisla in Speyside. I know there are others, but I didn’t want to make this list too long. Glenfarclas isn’t mentioned on the label, but let me tell you this is a Glenfarclas, and a very old one too. I have tasted several very old Glenfarclas, and sometimes they tend to be very woody, but that’s also because there are a lot of very old Glenfarclas around, and 42yo is a long time to spend in a cask. I’m 42 now and I wouldn’t want to spend my whole life in a cask.

To the whisky then. Glenfarclas is still a family owned operation that started legally in 1836. In 1965 it was bought by John and George Grant. Since then there were a lot of Georges and John Grants. Very popular names indeed in that family (and The Beatles for that matter). Sometimes they have extra letters for identification purposes. Next time I’ll be up at Glenfarclas, I’m dying to meet Ringo S. Grant! Good to see a still family owned distillery surviving competing with the big conglomerates like Diageo. There are several more like Bladnoch for instance. Power to them!

Color: Orange Copper

Nose: Musty and leafy. Fruity, spicy and maybe some acetone. The odd combination of gravy with honey. Thick. Body, yet not too heavy. Then a coffee note: something like mocha and cappuccino, maybe a whiff out of the old fireplace in winter. It’s a treat to smell this, but it doesn’t smell so old as you might expect.

Taste: Dry and spicy wood. Slightly fruity with paint, and even a bit hot, which in this case is great! Honeyed licorice. When freshly opened it had a strange finish, but after a month or so that’s completely gone. So time was on its side. It has some bitterness in the finish but that doesn’t mean the whole is woody or even overly woody, no, the wood is fine here.

To sum it up, it doesn’t seem so old, it sure is balanced, but misses some complexity you might want if you buy such an old whisky from the sixties. Still it’s not bad though, not bad at all. And oooh, I like the heat in this, definitively a big plus.

Points: 88

Note: When this was distilled in November 1967, The Beatles were at Abbey Road Studios doing mixes for their Magical Mystery Tour album, and recorded their Christmas disk for the fanclub…so now you know.

Rodenbach (5.2%, 25 cl)

Here’s something else to put in your mouth!

It’s difficult to say what kind of beer Rodenbach really is. Michael Jackson called it a Red Beer or Burgundy of Belgium. In Flanders they call it a “(Flemish) Old Brown” or “Flemish Red Brown”. Sometimes it’s also called a “West Flanders Red Brown” So take your pick. The brewery started in Roeselare Belgium in 1821, and as of 1998 Rodenbach is part of the Palm group.

Rodenbach Original or Classic is blended from aged (1/4) and young beers (3/4) and married for two years. There is also a Rodenbach “Grand Cru” (6%) wich also is blended from aged (2/3) and young beers (1/3). Besides these two, some less known special editions are released. The vintage 2009 springs to mind.

Color: Red Brown, Mahogany.

Nose: Sour, fruity and yeast. After a while it smelled a bit like sugar syrup.

Taste: Watery (in comparison to the Grand Cru). Sour and winey. Lemon-lime citrus notes and very fresh. Hints of wood which gives the beer some body. Sometimes this reminds me of a Lambic beer.

This one is all right and could be savoured any time. It’s probably at its best on a terrace in the summertime. Really refreshing, thirst quenching. It has its place, and in comparison with other Belgian beers it shure is unique, but if you like more depth and more…well everything, you should go for the Grand Cru. This still is pretty decent and fresh, classic Rodenbach.

Personally I wouldn’t buy this (any more). The Grand Cru is so much better. The ‘Cru’ also is great for outside drinking in the summertime and has some more meat on its bones. If given the choice, a no brainer for me.  Master Quills tip: this beer is still ok, past its best before date…

Points: 74

Strathisla 25yo (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, Pinerolo Torino, 75 cl, Circa 1980)

And here’s already the second Strathisla by Gordon & MacPhail. This one has bottlecode SC999 and Gordon & MacPhail used these bottles roughly between 1981 and 1987. But if I would have a guess, this seems to be closer to 1981 than 1987. And thus this would be a late fifties distillate! (And the previous 15yo Strathisla, one from the mid seventies). That’s quite a difference and will probably be evident in the taste and smell. Also note that this 25yo is notably darker. Like the 15yo, this bottle was also bought for a ‘Genietschap’ Tasting. But this time for a tasting hosted in Switzerland.

Color: Copper, orange / brown.

Nose: Old Sherry. This is deep and spicy. It has some butter that fades quickly. Tarry, coal, old bottle effect and very, very appetizing. You just want to smell this as long as it stays liquid. Fabulous. No other word to describe this.

Taste: Sherry again, tarry and coal is in here too. Sometimes a whiff of sweetness passes across your palate. Laurel licorice and wood, which make it spicy. There are even some cherries in the finish. Again this is an old sherried whisky from the times they made this with steam or something, because for me again it has the traits of an old steam locomotive. It’s probably no coincidence that Jack Wiebers has a ‘Old Train Line’ series.

The Strathisla is warming, even when you think at the same time that the 40% isn’t enough. Imagine this at a higher strength or even cask strength for that matter. One thing is certain: they don’t make them like this anymore. Try to find it and dish out a lot of cash, because it’s worth it. Just have a go at this standard G&M, 25yo Strathisla, and find yourself a sweater made from those fabulous looking Strathisla sheep!

While the 15yo was initially considered a fake by the ‘Genietschap’. This 25yo definitively was not. It was considered the best of the evening.

Points: 94

P.S. If any of you turn out to be, Italian tax-band specialists, mine is Series EX, number 426944. Let me know if you know from which year this is.

San Luis Rey Lonsdale

Another fine day to have a quiet smoke on the porch, but not in front of the house but in the back. I know, I know, this is very important information for you. This time it was very easy to pick a cigar from my humidor. I delved somewhat deeper into my humidor to surpass the Robustos and other shorter cigars, to find a candidate among the Lonsdales, Coronas and Double Coronas. This one beckoned, and again it’s a San Luis Rey. It’s a very well aged cigar, it has aged for maybe ten years. Also some sad news. This Lonsdale was discontinued in 2006, since SLR isn’t a main brand anymore, and the tobacco is needed for other brands.

Cuban San Luis Rey Lonsdale (42 x 165mm, Cervantes, Lonsdale, Box Code Unknown)

Color and Looks: Colorado (grey/green). No frays, has some veins, well cut. Looks a bit rustic, but is straight as an arrow. No spots and slightly box pressed. Draw seems ok.

A cru: Smells like a good cigar shop. Grassy and hay, but not young.

Taste: The first whiffs are excellent. No salt on the lips but there is some soapy sensation. After all those Robusto like cigars, this Lonsdale seems rather thin. It’s a good smoke, chocolate. Especially the smoke from outside the cigar is outstanding! White ash throughout. It has some wood but it’s different from other woody cigars. It’s like plywood with furniture wax. Also some almonds. This goes well with carbonated water. It’s a mild cigar. It almost smokes like a (dry) Dutch cigar. It’s funny and maybe a bit insulting, but the best thing going for this cigar is the second-hand smoke, which is simply stunning.

It smokes easily. No problems with draw or burn. Good build. Ash falls off quite quickly. No tunnelling. This cigar makes my Lavazza Sinfonia Espresso taste woody, sharp and dry. The cigar is better. I like this one. I thought the beginning was pretty decent, but the second part is great. Give it some time and you’ll have a happy moment. I’m having this pre dinner, but I think it will work well anytime in the day. Still I don’t consider this to be an everyday smoke. It deserves more respect. Now I try it with double burnt Robusto coffee. Definitively the better choice for this cigar. The coffee tastes creamy, so it complements well.

Why isn’t it perfect then? I recon it could have evolved some more. The last part is rather bland and does nothing for the cigar. It also lacks some complexity. I’ll do another test. This time I’m going to try it with a Bourbon. I chose a Four Roses Single Barrel (the new 50% one). Like the coffee tasted creamy, this Four Roses tasted sweet. Still something unexpected happened. The first sips of Four Roses were done in the second part of the cigar, but when the cigar became bland in its final stage, the Bourbon started to taste better. The cigar’s final stage announced itself with dying down tastes and an addition of menthol. It never became harsh or sharp, but you just know the end is near. Also the ash became darker, even black. Since the Lonsdale is a long cigar, the weaker end wasn’t such a problem.

86 Points