Thursday, 13 May 2010

#378 - [EXPLETIVE REMOVED]


Oh boy... 

I had intended to fill this log entry with the tasting notes for 
four antique samples I received from our Australian malt 
maniac Craig Daniels some time ago. However, once again 
I'm being pestered by a lawyer - and over the last few 
months the story has grown weird enough to warrant a
publication on my whisky blog. So, you'll only find my
scores at the bottom of this article; the tasting notes
will be published on the distillery profiles.


Those of you that have been following the Malt Madness
and Malt Maniacs web sites for a few years may remember 

that we used to publish quite a lot of information about our
investigations about fake whiskies on our website in the
past. Before the old website crashed in 2006 we even had a special 'Fake Alert' page that was dedicated to this topic. 


After the old site crashed, the fake alert page became part of the 'frozen' ADHD archive while I started work on two brand new websites. This effectively meant that I now have to dive directly into the HTML code of the old pages for every single change - a lengthy, boring and cumbersome process, especially if you have better things to do. 

Fortunately, during a period of some four years there had been no need for me to directly edit the code of any of the old pages - until circa three months ago when I received an e-mail from our Italian maniac Luca, begging me to try and sort out an issue with Italian whisky trader Giuseppe Gambi. Luca told me that Mr. Gambi kept harassing him because of the fact that his name was mentioned several times on the aforementioned "fake alert" page. His name was mentioned there because a few suspicious bottles could be traced back to his rare whisky store in Ravenna. 

The fact that Mr. Gambi was mentioned on the whisky fakes page made this fake alert page pop up whenever peope searched for his name on Google. Mr. Gambi still deals in whisky - these days under the name "Rare Whisky" - and he claimed that the fact that his name was (publicly) connected with the trade in fake whisky damaged his business because some customers were extra cautious. So, he asked me to change or remove the page. I certainly didn't want to remove the page, because I feel it still provides valuable information to caution people about fake whiskies, but since it deals with two cases from circa 2004 (and in both cases the fakes were not "confirmed" with certainty, I decided to delve into the HTML code of the old page and change the name of Mr. Gambi in 'An anonymous whisky seller from Ravenna, Italy'. Nevertheless, a few weeks ago I received this message from the lawyer of Mr. Gambi;

"On behalf of Mr. Giuseppe Gambi, who turned to our assistance, formulating this to reiterate the same as expressed in the entire pre-existing post. In particular, while appreciating its operation to avoid the juxtaposition of the name of Mr Gambi to vendors of counterfeit whiskey typing its name on the web, also recognizing the attempt to eliminate the name of our client from the page www.maltmaniacs/ADHD/fake.html (SIC!), we regret to point out that in any event the reader of your magazine and the visitor of your web pages is inevitable pull the name of Mr Gambi to that of Mr. Boroli when referring to a collector and seller of whiskey rare in Ravenna, given the paucity of knowledgeable and expert in your field and then back to the ease of Mr. Gambi by the mere physical location. This inevitably affects the right of integrity and respectability of our patients, considering also the honesty and frankness with which he himself presents the bottles you examined. While acknowledging the good will, please remove any reference to our client from the page mentioned above, anything ostando the fact that this is an archive page. Finally, recognizing the importance of your work to protect consumers, we want to reaffirm the correctness of the work of our client, too deep lover of whiskey, whose integrity must be respected through a proper comparison of the merits of the issues and through the ability to counter the "allegations" moves, giving him the opportunity to argue his case by granting the "defense" as much space and prominence on your online magazine granted yours.  Sure of the collaboration that will be kind, and we wait for clarification and any need and in the occasion we send our warmest greetings   adv. MATTEO SANTINI"

Wow... Did Mr. Santini use 'Google Translate' to compose this letter? It's a very useful tool if you want to know the general meaning of a certain phrase in Swahili, but perhaps not the best tool for legal correspondence quite yet. The letter seemed friendly enough - at least the parts I could understand. I know my English is far from perfect, but I surely hope my sentences are more intelligible than this gibberish. Nevertheless, I decided to make the connection to Mr. Gambi on the fake alert page even vaguer and changed the description to "A whisky trader from Italy". Surely, they can't object to that?

Well, apparently they can - see the enclosed second portion of gibberish I received a few weeks later... "Further to previous correspondence, took note with appreciation of the interventions made by you on the site particolre's claim relating to our client, evidenziat already in our previous letter, we ask you one last time on this page www.maltmaniacs/ADHD/mm16b.html (SIC!) intervention. from the reading of which we unfortunately highlight emerging considerations, going beyond the legitimate right to criticize, undermines the integrity and respectability of our client. We ask you to delete any reference to our client from the page referred to above, or reformulated in terms of its sphere less invasive of personal rights in order to consider closed this whole affair. Sure again of the collaboration that will be kind, we remain at your disposal for any need or  clarification and we renove our warmest greetings. Adv. MATTEO SANTINI" 


And "Google Translate" rears its ugly tongue again. From what I understood of it, Giuseppe Gambi and his lawyer now had problems with YET ANOTHER page on Malt Maniacs, this time one with an article about fake whiskies where Mr. Gambi was only mentioned in passing. By now my patience had grown really, really thin. However, once again the gentler side of my personality managed to suppress my instincts to place a giant banner with the text "WE SUSPECT GIUSEPPE GAMBI MAY HAVE SOLD FAKE WHISKY IN THE PAST" on all pages of Malt Madness and Malt Maniacs to express my annoyance. However, that would take even more of my precious free time, so I took a few deep breaths and dove into the HTML code of yet another old archive page to appease Mr. Gambi and Mr. Santini. So, now the name of Mr. Gambi had been removed from all pages on Malt Maniacs and all connections in the Googlyverse would soon be severed.

And then, incredulously enough, I received this message yesterday; 

"(...) we reported that the research carried out on the Google search engine by typing its name and the word whiskey is the first page that appears: Malt Maniacs investigates the world of fake whiskey and Other Contraband. www.maltmaniacs.org / ADHD / fake.html. Although a blank page whose content is not attributable to our experienced, its placement within the search engine itself creates damage to the image of Mr. Gambi. Please therefore speeding up the procedures for cancellation, maybe contacting http: / / www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?&answer=164734 to remove from Google results no longer valid and consider closed the whole thing."

Whaaaat???? So, now I've spent several hours removing the name 'Giuseppe Gambi' from two different pages on Malt Madness and Malt Maniacs, and now they want me to contact Google because one very specific search string shows a page in the search results that was changed over a month ago? Mind you: I've checked and a regular search for "Giuseppe Gambi" showed no pages on
Malt Madness and Malt Maniacs - just the specific search on his name in combination with the word 'whisky'. And mind you even more: Google refreshes its results regularly, so even that specific search result would have disappeared in a few weeks time I imagine. 

But apparently Mr. Gambi enjoys spending money on a lawyer to keep pestering me. Not an expensive lawyer though; I imagine those would either have a proper command of the English language - or at least the funds to hire one if they happen to be linguistically challenged. Now, I've always had a distaste for lawyers - I think that many lawyers are parasites in the fabric of our modern Western society that charge a lot of money but don't actually contribute a lot to 'the greater good'. Just like the mercenaries of companies like Blackwater they profit from conflict - they are just better dressed... (Note to lawyers: I may need one of you soon if this article backfires, so please keep in mind that I said those nasty things about MANY lawyers; of course that didn't apply to you. What's more, I made a compliment about your dress sense... ;-)

Anyway, by now my patience had worn out altogether. I kindly invited Mr. Gambi and Mr. Santini to contact Google with their complains about the free search service. I suspect Google has lawyers of their own, so they can battle it out together. And interestingly enough, the same goes for the contents of this article...

Which is incidentally hosted by "Blogger"... 
Which is owned by Google....
Ironic, isn't it?

Meanwhile, as far as Craig's samples are concerned... I'll limit myself to the scores here; you can find my tasting notes in the Distillery Data section within a few days...

89 - Lochside 17yo 1965 
(40%, G&M Connoisseurs Choice, Old brown label)

87 - Millburn 18yo 1977/1996 (43%, Coopers Choice) 

78 - Millburn 1978/1997 (65.6%, G&M, C#3166)

That's it for now. I'll leave you with news that we're enjoying a cold spell here in Holland at the moment, which I'll use to clear a few Islay samples from my shelves soon. 


Sweet drams... 




* = The humanitarian in me decided to change the title of this post a few months later so it would no longer receive 'top billing' from Google for searches on 'Guiseppe Gambi'.
 

  

Saturday, 8 May 2010

#377 - Assorted Tasting Notes


The winter has been long and cold in Holland, with a snowy blanket that covered the land for more than a month. That was quite unusual, and spring has started the same. There has been a green haze around the trees since a few weeks now, but due to unusually dry conditions they did not signal the arrival of spring yet with the usual explosion of fresh green leaves

However, after three warm and sunny weeks we're now enjoying a cold and rainy weekend - ideal for a two day dramming session to 'work away' some old samples and do some serious thinking. The national elections are only a month away and I'm still a 'vigorously floating voter'. I'm even considering NOT voting at all because one could argue that one is satisfied with the current, antiquated electoral system by voting.

Compass Box NAS 'Magic Cask 2006' (46%, OB, Over 480 Bts.)
(A vatting of Clynelish 14yo and Linkwood Madeira Finish)
Nose: Fruity with a hint of oil in the background. Polished. 

Some chloride and very subtle spices emerge over time. 
Taste: Round, light and sweet. Very smooth on the palate.
Score: 79 points - nice; just short of recommendable...

Murray McDavid 'Trilogy' (40.3%, MMcD, Bottled 2006)
(A vatting of Bowmore, Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain)
Nose: Classy, very antique and distinguished. Coal smoke. Fruits.
The fruits evolve over time. I wanted to prolong the experience.
Taste: A bit weak in the start, loads of 'OBE'. Dry, tannic finish.
A bit meaty as well; a perfect example of an 'antique' whisky. 

Coffee. Lots of coal smoke and a hint of beer. I love this profile!
Score: 91 points
- a brilliant vatting that grew on me over time.
For a while it was too weak on the palate for the 90's, but it finally arrived there. After almost an hour it finally reached 91 points...


QE2 NAS (43%, OB, Morrisson Bowmore Ltd., Black Decanter, 75cl) 
Nose: Smoky and sweaty. Tertiary fruits. Crushed plant stems.
Old fashioned menthol sweets. The aroma is simply unique.

Very fragrant; this one has 'a lot of nose' for the first ten minutes.
Taste: Lovely combination of sweetness and 'OBE'. Liquorice.
Gentle tannins in the finish. This one grows sweeter over time.
Score: 88 points - I received this sample from Olivier, who described it as "a ceramic black decanter (jug) done by Morrison Bowmore, probably a vatted or blended malt (can't remember) that was served on the QE2 (the boat) for 1st class passenger after it's launch. There is a NAS version and a 12yo. The Whisky is called QE2 like the ship and not Queen Elizabeth 2."  So there you have it...


Aberlour-Glenlivet 8yo 1965
(50%, OB, Cube bottle, small cork, Rinaldi Import, 75cl) 

Nose: Birch wood smoke. Subtle sweet and organic notes. Great!
Sweet with a hint of pine. Fruity richness in the background.
Mon Cherie - liquor filled chocolates. Just hugely enjoyable...
Taste: Quite unique. Woody and quite dry, but softer 'edges'.
The pine I found in the nose returns on the palate. Dry finish.
Score: 89 points -
incredibly complex for such a young malt.

That's it for now - but expect some fresh notes in a few days.
Most of these samples came from Olivier (Thanks Olivier, lovely stuff!); next time I'll focus on a few samples Craig Daniels sent me.


Meanwhile, I'm very happy to report that I've managed to update all distillery profiles in the 'G' section with the latest details and tasting notes. About two thirds of the Distillery Data section of Malt Madness is now revised; I hope to finish the rest before the preparations of the Malt Maniacs Awards 2010 begin in earnest.

Sweet drams...
 

Saturday, 24 April 2010

#376 - A Darker Glen Grant?

Over the years, a lot of official bottlings have evolved beyond my financial comfort zone. So, my interest in the affordable 'bottom shelf' segment of the single malts market has only grown keener over time. I'm very happy that quite a few affordable 'daily drams' are entered into our annual Malt Maniacs Awards competition each year, so I can stay informed about the condition of a wide range of affordable single malt whiskies that are available these days.

Unfortunately, some distilleries and bottlers never participate in our competition, so I have to buy bottles or swap samples if I want to know what the latest batches taste like. With that in mind, I bought myself a bottle of the regular Glen Grant NAS a wile ago, so I could publish fresh tasting notes and a score. I didn't really notice the colour initially, because it was a dark amber 'whisky colour' like so many other bottles on my shelf. However, then it dawned on me that the Glen Grant NAS used to be unusually light in colour in the 1990's - perhaps the lightest regular OB available at the time. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but could it be that Campari started using lots of caramel when they introduced the new packaging in 2007? I decided to share my thoughts with the maniacs...

Olivier: "More caramel, absolutely… I am sure it increases image value. In Germany you can see all these ‘Mit Farbstoff’ on all these bottlings. I recently looked at a big range of Dalmore and they ALL had this mention on the back label. Unless they use a standard back label for all products, I would say that most commercial 12yo or less have caramel added in order to avoid colour differences between batches, but now it also adds a certain image of quality (darker = more tasty and older). However, I am happy that one of my favourite 12yo is now made without colorant: Highland Park 12yo. In 2008 they started using again older sherry casks to adjust colour.".

Ho-cheng: "Dear Johannes, You are certainly right. When I visit Glen Grant in 2007 summer, they just release the new labeling,  I did remember the distillery manger, Dennis Malcolm, showed me both versions, the new one with caramel the old one don't, He asked my opinion about it. (Please see the attached photo.) He mentioned that the marketing team believe coloring is better for the sales and he think it has very minor effects with the taste. Honestly, I did remember I taste them in spot and also brought some back for the second blind tasting, I can only tell very little difference but hardly to say which one is better." 

Dave Broom: "Without wanting to stir up the bloody caramel debate yet again it's worth noting that from this year Burn Stewart are bottling their malts with no caramel, no chill-filtering and at a higher strength. Just got the samples through. I think (well.. hope) that as single malt begins to move into the premium price area where it always should have resided that we will see more of this." 

Luca: "In Italy, one of the selling points of Glen Grant was the light color of the whisky. "Colore chiaro, gusto pulito" (Light color, clean taste) has been the classic lines used for the ads and TV commercials. I wonder how they will change marketing strategy now, after using that approach for so many decades. Another case of Macallan turning from "we only use sherry casks" to "we are using all kinds of crappy casks and the result is wonderful"?"

Davin: "Don't forget the Van Meersbergen experiment which showed some Maniacs couldn't tell the difference or  marginally preferred the flavour of vatted malts with caramel added.  That Jim Murray hates it so, has campaigned so hard against it, (and detects it in places it isn't), almost makes me hope Burns Stewart change their minds."

Nabil: "OK, I don't want to raise the wrath of Davin...I'm going to see him in a couple days!  Let's set flavour aside.  Ho-Cheng's and Olivier's comments are really the crux of the issue: The industry wants the colour of the whisky to make a (perhaps deceptive) statement about time in the cask, type of cask, and tastiness.  I understand the marketing challenges, but on principle I wish they wouldn't use caramel....I prefer au naturel."

Serge: "Nabil, I guess it's hard to resist what the consumer wants and anoraks do not quite make for 'a market'. In the 1960s they had to 'de-colourise' some whiskies because the people wanted 'light' or 'light-looking' whiskies! And I've heard Coca-Cola, were it not caramelised, would be green ;-). As they say, 'tastes and colours!'..."

These wise words were not the end of our debate (in fact, we seldom finish our debates with wise words ;-) but the 'Ask an Anorak' discussion derailed a bit after this. I'd like to stress that I'm not against colouring by definition. In fact, a recent tasting from Bert, Paul, Michel and myself sort of proved that caramel doesn't only work as a colouring agent, it also has a positive effect on the taste and cohesion of the whisky. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also a reason why many producers add it these days. It's not allowed to add flavour components to a pure product like Scotch whisky - but if a change in flavour is a side-effect of the colouring agent, there's little they can do about it, right? 

Oh, it looks I'm growing cynical in my old age ;-)

Sweet drams...
 

Sunday, 18 April 2010

#375 - The Shelf Situation in 2010


During my reconstruction work on the 'Malt Madness' site, I recently stumbled across my old 'stock list' with a detailed overview of my malt whisky collection in 2004. I published the reconstructed page last week and I've received quite a few positive responses from readers that enjoyed the revival of this 'little look over my shoulder'. 

I don't actually plan on reviving the detailed overview of my single malt whisky collection, but since I've recently obtained a new telephone with a crappy camera, I have the opportunity to share a peek at part of my current whisky collection.

As you can see, I only use my top shelf for big bottles at the moment; the rest of my cabinate is reserved for whisky samples, whisky books and my 'reserve stock'. At the moment, my top shelf contains a fair share of 'light antiques' - (among other things);

- Braes of Glenlivet 1977/2000 (43%, Montgomerie's)
- Glenglassaugh 1973 Family Silver (40%, OB, +/- 2000)
- Glenmorangie NAS '100 Proof (57,2%, OB, 100cl, +/- 1999) 
- Greenore 15yo (43%, OB, Single Grain, Ireland, +/- 2008)
- Knockando 1984/1998 (40%, OB) 
- Lagavulin 16yo (43%, OB, +/- 2009)
- Lark NAS (46%, OB,
Cask LD51, Btl. 2007, Tasmania)
- Macallan 12yo (43%, OB, 100cl, +/- 1997)
- Port Askaig 17yo (45.8%, TWE, +/- 2009)
- Tomintoul 12yo (43%, OB, Perfume tube, +/- 1990, 75cl)

Meanwhile, I haven't posted too many fresh entries lately, but that's mainly because I've been busy updating and re-vamping the distillery profiles. During the work on the pages I had the opportunity to sample a handful of ancient samples that had been on my shelves for at least two years. A lot of these samples were donated a long time ago by Serge and Bert. I'll only list the scores here; you can find many of the tasting notes in the distillery profiles.  

78 - Bunnahabhain 10yo 1997/2008 - Revised score
(46%, Signatory UCF, Refill Butt, C#5355, 852 Bts.) 

88 - Dufftown-Glenlivet 21yo 1978/1999 
(55.2%, Cadenhead's, Sherry Hogshead, 264 Bts.) 

82 - Glenfarclas 1991/2004 
(46%, OB, Cask #5619, 649 Bts.)

59 - Glen Grant NAS
(40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2010)

71 - Glenrothes 1986/2005 
(46%, Helen Arthur, Plain Oak, 600 Bts.) 

86 - Glenury Royal 29yo 1970/1999 
(57.0%, UD Rare Malts)

66 - Inchmoan 1994/2005 
(55.4%, OB for The Whisky Fair, C#647, 222 Bts.)

89 - Linkwood 16yo 1990/2007
(58.7%, Single Malts of Scotland, Sherry hogs., C#5038, 283 Bts.)

87 - Linlithgow 31yo 1970/2002 
(52.4%, Douglas Laing Platinum, 139 Bts.) 

That's all the news at the moment - stay tuned for more.

Sweet drams...
 

Monday, 12 April 2010

#374 - Glenrothes Approvals



A few days ago our Taiwanese malt maniac Ho-cheng Yao wondered about something that I had wondered about as well a few years ago. Around the turn of the millennium, the labels of every official bottling of the Glenrothes malt whisky contained two dates; a 'checked' date and an 'approved' date. Oddly enough, the bottling year was sometimes different from the approval year.When Ho-cheng brought up this question again, there was quite some speculation amongst the maniacs before Martine Nouet was clever enough to simply pass our questions along to Ronnie Cox of Glenrothes. This afternoon I received this enlightening response from Ronnie;

"Dear Johannes, I received this from one of the Malt Maniacs and perhaps you'd like to share this reply with the others.

The Glenrothes Vintages are a collection of casks chosen to represent a style,  mood or personality of The Glenrothes. Each Vintage will be different and vary in accordance with time spent in the cask and the type of casks selected. It is certainly true that some Vintages have sold several thousand cases (sold over a few years) but others can be measured in hundreds of cases. A Malt like The Glenrothes which sells less than 20,000 cases of combined vintages p.a. is tiny compared to the top volume malts. Vintages of The Glenrothes represent no more than 2% of the distilleries' annual production capacity. To put it into perspective Glenrothes can produce 870,000 equivalent cases of spirit @ 43% per annum.

To your doubts:

The "Checked" date merely indicates the year when the New Make Spirit was approved, by the laboratory or distillery, for maturation in the casks selected for this Vintage.

The "Approved" year is when is was originally approved by the Malt Master and ourselves in London, for bottling.

If there is a difference on the label between the "Approved" year and year of bottling, it means that whilst the whiskies were from the same original vatting, they were bottled after the approval date. The process is as follows: once vatted and reduced to 45% the vatted Vintage is returned to cask where it remains until it is needed. This "marriage" will occur over several months (normally about 6) before the first bottling is made. A second bottling of this same Vintage (and original stock) is sometimes made in a subsequent year.

The casks used for the marrying process are what we call "inactive" casks - having served their useful and active life. They contribute nothing to the flavour at this stage but simply act as a vehicle to store the Vintage and to allow the marrying process to take place following the disturbance of water reduction.

I hope that this answers Ho-cheng Yao's question as well. I should perhaps add, for clarification, that when the marrying takes place in "oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres", it is legally ageing.  This isn't relevant to The Glenrothes as we don't talk about age (as age tells us little about the maturity and flavour) but, of course, we make sure that the correct year of bottling is on the label for those who want to know.

Let me know if there are any other questions.....(...) A lot of whisky has crossed the bar since we last met." 

Excellent - I think that answers all our questions... Thanks, Ronnie!

I will update the Glenrothes distillery profile accordingly.

Sweet drams...