The Macallan 10yo (57%, OB, Sherry Wood, 100 Proof)

And here is a very old Macallan, a Macallan from the days we all thought, this is Macallan and it’s never gonna change. They sort of promised us that on the back label: For reasons not even science can wholly explain, whisky has always matured best in oak casks that have contained sherry. Due to increasing expense and scarcity, other distillers no longer insist on sherry casks, The Macallan directors do. After this they went on to produce the Fine Oak Series, a ‘blend’ of sherry and bourbon casks. A cunning move, why? Was it to scarce? Was it too expensive? Did they think they should use their big name to uncharter a new market? Because the sales proves it, Fine Oak does well and ís hip. It just isn’t Macallan anymore…

So for my generation, The Macallan was something like the bottle you see here. Nice brown/orange whisky made from Oloroso Sherry (and who knows some PX).

Color: copper brown. (it’s not dark brown, and it doesn’t have a red tinge to it, so it’s not mahogany, as I often read).

Nose: Yeast, nuts and caramel, typical Oloroso Sherry nose. Fresh like seaspray. Strong, full and creamy (this is what we want in a cigar). Chocolate and some wood and spices. This has oomph and a lot of depth. Nicer and less harsh than the A’bunadh. It’s like comparing an Aston Martin to a Hummer. (Both have their merits though. Would you drive your Aston in a war zone?) Did I just call drinking whisky a war zone? wow!

Taste: Thick and sticky. Tar and smoke. A hint of pepper and mocha. Dust. Strong Oloroso Sherry. Oak and liquorice. Hot (it’s 57%). Even an exotic note like curry. Oak and the hint of curry are predominant in the finish. Still it’s not and old whisky. It’s only 10 years old, but so different from the Hummer mentioned before. Why are there so much sherried Glendronachs around, and why aren’t there a lot more of these types of Macallan around?

Well this is old skool whisky. This may not be very complex,  but just try to ‘get’ the steam locomotive in these kinds of whiskies. The tar, the coal and the steam. I’m very sorry these Macallans aren’t around anymore. They were very classy, and if you can find them now, they are very expensive. If you have a chance, try this, it’s a piece of history.

Points: 89 (for now)

Short Stories: Klug Gewurztraminer 2009

Caves Klug Gewurztraminer 2009, ABV 13%, Bennwhir, Alsace

Color: White Wine.

Nose: Lychee, thin exotic Gewurztraminer nose, citrussy, all very subdued.

Taste: Very thin, some lychee and dried apricots, typical Gewurztraminer yet very light. Don’t give it to children it still is 13%! Decent lemonade for in the summer, not with food. Even boiled rice would overpower it.

Won a gold medal at the 2010 grand concours des vins d’Alsace in Colmar. Well that’s possible. But it must have been in the el cheapo category. It’s definitively ok, but very very simple. Get a chilled bottle, put a straw in it and take five minutes on a park bench in the sun. So it does have a purpose, and hey, it still brings me back to the region. Flammenkuchen anyone?

Points: 71

Short Stories: Harald Konrad Fehres Riesling Classic 2002

Weingut Harald Konrad Fehres Riesling Classic 2002, ABV 12%, Mosel-Saar-Ruwer

Color: Full White Wine.

Nose: Fresh, apricots, buttery, classic Riesling, boiled potatoes, flinty, peach.

Taste: Perfect balance, slightly lemony acidic ánd slightly sweet, light but not simple, very drinkable.

Highly recommended!

If it were still available I would buy this by the box. Maybe not too complex, but absolutely without flaws. I tried some other Fehres whites and all were pretty good.

Just have a look at: http://www.weingut-fehres.de/

Points: 84

The Griffin’s Robusto Maduro

Twentieth post, so let’s get something out of the ordinary. I don’t have a lot of non Cubans lying around so I was very curious how this would be. Besides that, this cigar earned itself a 90 points score from Cigar Insider. So here it goes…

The Griffin’s are named for the Griffin’s Club in Switzerland, and are made with tobacco from the Cibao Valley in the Dominican Republic. and I guess that with Nicaragua, these are the countries to watch when thinking of good cigars to compete with the Cubans. The Cigar is made by Davidoff and that shows. It’s a very nice looking cigar, so it seems to have a good build quality. Compared to their Classic Line, this Maduro uses an aged Connecticut Broadleaf Maduro wrapper. The producers themselves describe the taste as this:  Spicy, sweet aromas with medium-strong, but understated piquancy…

The Griffin’s Robusto Maduro (50 x 127mm, Robusto, Box Code Unknown)

Color and Looks: Maduro. Very nice wrapper with one larger vein. Numerous small white spots on its surface, like sand. A little tear at the foot. The whole cigar feels firm.

A cru: Deep tobacco flavor, perfumy. After cutting, it smells grassy (this cigar sat for many years in my humidor). Draw is al right and tastes like hay.

Taste: Good smoke, very appetizing, very elegant smell from the outside. It reminds me of how cigars smelled when I was a kid (when somebody else was smoking). Grey ash, straight as an arrow, with a slightly brown tinge to it. Very firm ash, good build. I’m having it after dinner, and it smokes just fine. Perfect draw. Quite mild with no soapyness or ammonia. Well aged. I have a feeling that the Maduro wrapper balances the cigar, and gives it more of an edge to it. I can imagine that the Classic version, would be mild and has to be smoked before dinner. It’s not an overly complex cigar, but still interesting enough for the connoisseur. Up to this point (1/3) a very nice surprise. If this would be a men’s fragrance, this would be a “sports” version.

The (2/3) mark starts with more spices and wood. The overall experience is on the dry side, so not creamy. Like the Petit Edmundo, this is a cigar that does not complement coffee, but rather emphasizes some tastes. I don’t think this cigar needs more ageing. Further down the road, this cigar keeps getting spicier, woodier and adds hints of bitter dark chocolate and licorice. It’s building up its strengths. By doing so, it gets more and more one-sided which is a bit boring really. Ash fell off only twice.

The first 1/3 was very satisfying, with nice development. 2/3 down, it became “stronger” and more linear and less interesting. The last third is very disappointing, so you can say the first half is good, the rest should die out in your ashtray. The big band this cigar has, is glued to the wrapper ánd is placed nearer to the middle than the end, so be careful when shifting or removing it. Or maybe they strategically placed it there, since you shouldn’t smoke the cigar beyond the band. Now try to score a cigar that starts so well and goes downhill so fast. The first third would score something like 85 points, and beyond the halfway point it’s more like 65 points. So overall I will score this…

70 Points

Montecristo Petit Edmundo

Not the best of days, due to hard wind, but still reasonably warm and I just craved a cigar, so it was time to try a Montecristo Petit Edmundo. Now that I’m sitting inside writing this, the sun came out…

Montecristo Petit Edmundo (52 x 110mm, Petit Robusto, Box Code Unknown) saw the light of day in 2006 and is clearly a cigar tailored to two kinds of trend. The first being large ring gauges, fat cigars are in fashion. The second being short. We don’t “have time” anymore to sit down and enjoy a smoke. So we’re in kind of hurry, yet we are still able to enjoy a cigar thoroughly, just not for so long. A bit of a shame though. Personally I still have to get used to those thick ones, just look at this picture, doesn’t it look “Big”? For me anything more than say ø48 looks a bit, well, overdone. But that’s only me and I will try to thoroughly enjoy this cigar.

Ok, why is it called Petit Edmundo? First of all there is also an “Edmundo” that was issued in 2004. The Edmundo is a Robusto Cigar that looks more proportional, also with a ø52 ring gauge. Edmundo is 25mm longer. As I said, we all have no time, so they helped us by cutting off 25mm for us. That’s almost 20% off, and it’s also 20% cheaper, so that sounds ok. You’ll have a choice here that can be dictated by the amount of time you have. There is also a ‘Edicion Limitada’ issued in 2010, that’s called Grand Edmundo, a Robusto Extra, again ø52 and 40mm longer than the Petit Edmundo. The Price to length ratio is again the same, so more choice for those of us who have time on their side. Now for the Edmundo, who was this guy?

This happy camper here is Alexandre Dumas. You might know him from “The Three Musketeers” In 1844-1845 he publicized his second most popular work titled: “The Count of Montecristo”. Hey Montecristo! The main character in this story is Edmond Dantès. Being Cubans they turned Edmond into Edmundo. End of story. Nothing more to it. Let’s move on to the cigar shall we?

Color and Looks: Colorado, beautiful wrapper, no frays and very thin veins. Looks promising.

A cru: Grass, fresh air, plywood and cedar, smells young.

Taste: Cutting was quite a challenge. Keep your cutter sharp! Extremely easy draw. Salty wax on the lips. Abundant smoke from the very beginning. Smoke is woody and spicy. Very dry, no creamy ness at all. Some ammonia. This one is not so much a complement to coffee (Lavazza Sinfonia Espresso Intenso), but reinforces the same tastes. Both do that to each other. They cancel out each others diversity in tastes, a very striking trait. Only the dry woodyness remains. Definitively an after dinner cigar. You know, such a book by the fireplace type of cigar. Brown and black ash throughout. The draw is very easy. You don’t have to do nothing, the cigar smokes itself. Smelling it from the outside it smells a bit like a bonfire.

After the first 2 cm, the first signs of a lesser build quality appear, a crack near the foot of the cigar. It seems the wrapper isn’t strong enough for the growing filler. Further down the line, when the first ash fell off, some tunnelling was visible. When the second and last time the ash fell of a bigger tunnel was visible, wow. More strange phenomena occurred. After the halfway point, the cigar started to burn very unevenly and heavy corrections were needed. At the same time the wrapper started to ripple like the surface of water. It didn’t tear though. Also the cigar had a tendency to go out, so you would have to suck a bit more often to keep it lit.

Well it looked perfectly, very nice wrapper, but as it turned out, it covered a bit what was inside. Taste wise it was an ok cigar, with lots of smoke. Not very much evolution, but still decent taste though. The build quality was a big let down. Burn issues and tunnelling. Seems to me that it’s a popular cigar, and a lot of it is made at different locations. Probably had a lesser one.

75 points

Aberlour ‘A’bunadh’ (60.9%, OB, Batch No. 33, 2010)

There just had to be an Aberlour in one of the first posts here. Aberlour 10yo was my first single malt whisky ever! There’s no 10yo anymore in my lectern, not even a 10yo in stock. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a decent whisky, and it delivers a lot for the price it costs. But the good people at Aberlour also make this A’bunadh (of the origin), and compared to the 10yo this is really a steal. Very high quality whisky and it comes in all those neat batches. Oh, and it cask strength, and I just love cask strength.

A’bunadh, as it’s called, has no age statement (NAS) on the bottle, but is believed to be between 8 and 10 years old, and comes solely from Spanish Oloroso Sherry Butts. Well, if you could smell it now, or see it’s colour you would know this is true.

Color: Dark Copper or Orange/Brown.

Nose: Musty and meaty. Oloroso Sherry with oak. It even smells young and harsh. It misses some depth you can pick up from old sherry casks. (Just nose some 40yo+ Glenfarclas and you’ll know what I mean). Toffee, clay and some sourness (from the oak). It’s dusty and has a flowery note. Blackberry anyone?

Taste: Thick and full of flavour. Berries again, ashy and very nice. Some cardboard and a bit harsh due to its youth and strength. Hot! Lots of first fill casks in here. It smelled like a young sherried whisky and it tastes like one to and that is very nice for a change. There is nothing wrong with young whiskies, as long as they are well made, and this, this is well made, I can assure you. Great balance. Toasted wood in the finish.

Even though it’s young, strong and harsh I still like this neat. Water takes away the little sweetness it has and makes it a bit more harsh. Drinking this at cask strength, makes me happy. It’s a bit of a drug that way. Recommended. There are a lot of batches which have their differences. More than you would have thought. So it can be a lot of fun comparing different batches from different years. Some are less harsh, or more sweet or…You guessed it, come back often to A’bunadh, and you’ll be welcomed back every time by a very nice whisky. By the way, who said there weren’t any good sherry casks anymore, and who said those sherried whiskies aren’t affordable anymore?

Points: 87

Strathisla 15yo (70° Proof, Gordon & MacPhail, 26⅔ fl. ozs., Pinerolo Import Torino, Circa 1982)

I’m a big fan of old Strathisla’s. When I taste some from the 60’s or 70’s, I’m in heaven. With some old sherry cask bottles around, you can’t go wrong with Strathisla (and Longmorn, and Macallan, and…). Even 60’s bourbon casks are fantastic. So for this one, I certainly had high hopes and I paid some good money to get one. When I bought it at an auction, I thought it would be older than it turned out to be. Just look at that label with its 70° Proof and 26⅔ FL. OZS. The glass code on the bottom of the bottle (SD133) makes it from circa 1990.

I brought this with me on a ‘Genietschap’ Strathisla tasting. After I opened it, and we all tasted it, we initially thought is was a fake. We expected some old bottle effect but there was none, we may have been spoiled with our experiences with those old Strathisla’s but one thing was for sure, this was a disappointment then. Let’s try it again now and see what happens.

Color: Full Gold (Caramel?).

Nose: This smells to me like something that has been coloured with caramel. It smells very rounded out and smooth like toffee. A bit like a blend without the grain. Malty and musty. Dusty and elegant. Fresh, sweet, creamy and fruity and some fresh air from the sea. Candied apricots. Cream Sherry with a smoky and sweaty touch to it. Well it almost smells…old now, maybe even meaty for a brief moment.

Taste: Sweet with bitter wood. Fruit, apricots on vodka. Almonds. It’s a lemonade with some iron in the mix. The bitter component transfers from wood to something more waxy, earwax maybe. At times it tastes thin and easy and can be quite nice, but somehow the top of the taste doesn’t gel with the finish, hence its unbalanced, and that’s a shame for such an old bottle. Definitively some E150a in here.

The nose is balanced but alas the same cannot be said for the taste and the finish. It all breaks down in the mouth.Luckily it leaves you with a warm feeling, so I would say that it’s a whisky for a book at bedtime. Also I have to say that a big gulp tasted better than a sip. If you come across this, don’t but it at a premium price. There are also older bottles around. With a white cap and bottle code SC999. that should be a better bet than this one. Still it’s not bad at all. It’s very interesting and will reward you if you’d only want to work at it. Recommended for connoisseurs I guess. It’s an experience. Still, get one of the older versions!

Points: 84

Gavin D. Smith – Scotch Whisky (1999)

Let’s see if this rings a bell. Are you one of those people who own some whisky books? Do you have one of those coffee table books that cover everything? Isn’t it true that almost every time you pick up the book, you skip the first part that’s about the whisky history? Usually dry and boring stuff about which you already know everything that’s written down there and in every book like this, the same things are mentioned. You know of Uisge Beatha, you know who friar John Cor was and you know everything about the collapse of Pattison Elder & Company (in 1899). If I asked you: “how many bolls of malt…?” Wouldn’t you know the answer?

Well that’s all ancient history and well covered in almost every whisky book. But where is the modern whisky history? Where is the picking of the brains of people who made the whisky that’s in the oldest bottle you have at home? Here Gavin comes in. He talked with those people, he asked them interesting questions and writes down the answers which are even more interesting. Gavin is also the man who gathered the pictures of those times, and was brave enough to issue them in a reasonably priced book.

I’ll come back later to review the book about the whisky memoires, where the really interesting history is (Wort, Worms and Washbacks, 1999), but first the book with the pictorial history. In fact both books work well together. Just read the one and keep the second one at hand, to get a feel for what you’re reading.

The first thing that you’ll see in ‘Scotch Whisky’ are pictures obviously, many, many pictures (all black and white). Second, there is no story told in the classic way. There is almost no flowing text throughout the book. Just every chapter is briefly introduced across a page or two. So are we looking at the Scottish distilling picture book then? No, nothing like that. It’s a picture book wich tells its story through the captions written below every picture. this way it’s also easy to start anywhere in the book. You can pick which piece of history you want to look at first. You can look at different centuries, or have a look at different regions. The book has a great, logical structure.

I really like this book and I would have Gavin sign my books if I had the opportunity. I’m a fan of Gavin’s because he’s great, easy to read, has humor and is able to write a different kind of whisky book. Recommended!

Catch Gavin on-line at whisky-pages.

Gavin D. Smith, Scotch Whisky, 1999, 160 pages, Sutton Publishing Limited, ISBN 0-7509-2116-1

By the way, it was EIGHT bolls of malt.

Inchgower 28yo 1982/2010 (50.7%, Bladnoch Forum, Hogshead #6966, 222 bottles)

And here is another Whisky that stands atop of my lectern. This time an Inchgower bottled by Raymond Armstrong, the owner of Bladnoch Distillery. Bladnoch was founded in 1817, and Raymond bought it in 1995 and opened it again in 2000. Well this “Raymondo” has a website, and if that’s not all, he even has a forum. Well if you think that’s it now, wait, it gets better! Raymond buys casks of other distilleries’ whisky, bottles them, and sells them to members of the Bladnoch Distillery Forum. And it has to be said, he does that at very, very reasonable prices.

Now we move on to Inchgower, since it’s Inchgower that’s inside of the bottle. If you want to see how Raymonds operation looks like, and how this particular Inchgower was bottled, here is a link to a film made by our one and only Ralfy, certified Malt Maniac. (Just for the fun of it, I have bottle number 14)

Color: Copper Gold.

Nose: Caramel, estery and oaky. Distant liquorice, tar, olive oil and maybe even petroleum. All of this combined with some warm apple sauce and gravy. The nose hints of coming sweetness. It is a great nose, but when you sniff this for some time before tasting it there is something that’s not quite right, sort of unbalanced. You know it smells great, but…

Taste: Tar again, coal, sour oak. Almost as if it were made with steam and luckily it is not the sweet monster I expected. I hate it when a whisky is sugary sweet or simply too sweet. Instant headache. But don’t worry this is nothing like that. The top of the taste is very good. You’ll like it. The middle is oak, in a nice and elegant way. The finish is more the sour part of oak and sort of unbalanced, breaks down and is not very long. The wood is never overpowering or too strong. It’s a very nice example of Inchgower.

The bottle is almost full, but was opened last november (how time flies). I’ve tried small drams since then, and it got absolutely more balanced since the day of opening. Initial score was 85, but it will go higher now.

Points: 88

In fact it tastes more like an 89, but I had to take a point off for the slightly unbalanced finish.

Saint Luis Rey Regios

Another fine day to have a quiet smoke on the porch. This time it wasn’t so easy to pick a cigar from one of my humidors. In the end I settled for something that I always call the “Almost Robusto”.

This Cuban San Luis Rey Regios (48 x 127mm, Hermosos No.4, Corona Extra, Box Code Unknown) is slightly different from the typical Robusto size. Robustos are very popular these days, since they offer a relatively short smoke (nobody seems to have time anymore) with good aroma since it has an impressive ring gauge. Mind you, Robustos are nothing like a Behike, which looks like a tree trunk and makes you over stretch your jaws. Cigars are supposed not to be altogether healthy for you, but nobody thought it would break your jaw physically.

Back to this SLR then. Saint Luis Ray saw the light of day in 1940. Saint Luis is a district in Vuelta Abajo. And just like Por Larrañaga it comes in only three models: Serie A (Corona Gorda), Double Corona and this Regios (Corona Extra). When Por Larrañaga has a lot of Regionales versions. San Luis Rey had only one. In 2009 they issued a Pirámides. SLR is said to be on the stronger side and also uses tobacco leaves from the Semi Vuelta regions.

Color and Looks: Colorado Maduro. No frays, firm, not much veins, well cut. Some green and black spots and slightly box pressed. This one has aged a long time.

A cru: Sour, woody, elegant smell, old leather bicycle saddle, oaky. After I cut it, out comes a fresh, almost ozonic smell with hay and grass. I was a bit surprised by this.

Taste: Very good draw at first and the first whiffs of smoke smells very promising. Inside the mouth and the smoke on the outside, the smoke your average innocent bystander would smell is excellent and elegant. Now some ammonia. Lots of rich smoke that’s very woody. Ash is extremely white, but only from the wrapper. Inside it’s black but no brown core ash. This one should be smoked inside ones library.

After two centimetres the draw becomes cumbersome. You have to work this cigar and there is almost no smoke. Obviously the cigar gets rather hot. As long as it seems blocked there is a piney addition. After 2,5 cm the ash fell of and immediately the draw was good again and the smoke returned. The ash cone worked like a plug. No pine anymore, return of the oak and spice, but still rather linear. I smoked this with a Lavazza doppio espresso and again with some sparkling water. It was OK with the coffee, and it was just OK with the water, but nothing special. I didn’t try it with something else since probably nothing would go very well with it, but of course I could be wrong.

Halfway through, lots of menthol on my tongue, which was a sort of nice effect when drinking sparkling water. You could say the cigar turned a little but overall it’s pretty linear and hot on the tongue. In fact there isn’t a lot happening really. Near the very end I got some notes of inner tubes from a bicycle.

Apart from the problems with its draw, and the lack of evolution, this cigar would have benefitted from a creamy component. But sadly it doesn’t have this so, to sum up this cigar you could say it’s OK. It’s not bad really, it’s decent, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to get this. Lacks in balance and is a let down after the promising start. As I mentioned before SLR are said to be strong cigars. I couldn’t detect that when I was smoking it, but when I finished with it I noticed my hand were trembling, so there might be some truth to that rumour. Definitively a pre dinner cigar since this got me craving for some food afterwards.

74 points