Entry #332 - First Single & Single

May 11, 2008 - As if the whisky world wasn't in enough turmoil as it is (with the 'blended malt' debate, new distilleries being built and mothballed distilleries being resurrected), now a brand new independent bottler steps onto the stage. It's 'Single & Single', a 'boutique' bottler run by Yossi Schwartz. Bottling whisky is a hobby and 'for friends', Yossi's day job is chairman of the Young & Rubicam Group in South Africa.
 
Well, the arrival of 'Single & Single' isn't some megalomaniacal attack on the businesses of Gordon & MacPhail, Douglas Laing or Duncan Taylor. So far, S&S have only released one single bottling; a Glencadam 16yo from 1991 that was bottled in December 2007. Unlike the name suggests, they don't do single casks bottlings - at least not yet. Their first release came from 14 casks that were obtained from Dewar Rattray. The first bottling isn't chill filtered and Yossi claims they will aim to avoid this in the future too - as well as artificial colouring.

It says 'limited release' on the label, but that's relative.
Independent bottlers like Cadenhead's or Douglas Laing
bottle mostly single casks, which are limited to just a few
hundred bottles by definition. With a release of a bottling
of 3800 bottles from over a dozen casks, Single & Single
almost plays in the same distribution league as some of
the smaller distilleries and their official bottlings.

Because the first bottling will only be available in the UK,
Europe and South Africa, it should be relatively easy to
find. Check out the bottler's website to enquire about
availability; www.singleandsinglewhisky.com.

Two last bits of trivia; the name was inspired by a book
by John le Carré from 1999 and they plan to bottle a
Bowmore 8yo and Bunnahabhain 32yo next...

Glencadam 16yo 1991/2007 (46%, Single & Single, 75cl, Bottle #3790)
Nose: Light, sweet and 'grainy' - in a good way. Clean. Old fashioned honey sweets? Accessible.
Some apple notes emerge after a while. Not a very 'broad' spectrum, but nice development over time.
Hint of peat? No wait, it's chloride. This one really needs time to reveal all its subtleties & complexities.
Taste: Sweet, gentle start, solidifying in the middle. Smooth until the finish with a touch of bitterness.
The apple traits I found in the nose returned on the palate - together with some young 'sappy' wood.
I have to admit that over time the harsh 'bourbony' wood in the finish isn't something I enjoy a lot.
Adding a few drops of water didn't improve the nose, but it brought forward some fruits in the finish.
Score: 80 points - it makes it into the 80's on complexity, but it's one for the 'bourbon cask' type crowd.
For my personal tastes, I really need some fruits and/or tannins in the finish to balance out the wood.

So, that was one dram down - an inspiration to finish the Glencadam distillery profile today.
But there were some other samples on my shelves that were in dire need of sampling;

Benriach 15yo 1991/2006 'Tawny Port Wood' (53%, OB, C#6921, Port hogshead for Taiwan)
Nose: Very aromatic start. Wonderful, but drops off quickly. The harsher notes remain. Let's add some water...
Not much change in the profile with water; perhaps a hint of rubber... Could be better integrated.
Taste: Sweet with a clear port influence. Even sweeter in the middle, turning a tad smoky in the finish.
Score: 83 points - although I could have put it in the upper 80's after the first few whiffs.

Cragganmore 1993/2006 Distillers Edition (40%, OB, Port Wood Finish)
Nose: Strong fruits, but there's something slightly chemical about it... Definitely some rubber as well.
Rubber usually goes along with other sulphury smells like gunpowder, but not here it seems.
Taste: Very weak start, powering up with fruits and liquorice. Touch of rubber? A little bit weird...
Liquorice returns in the tannic finish. It arguably has some flaws, but at least it's not boring.
Score: 81 points - which means that I like it a lot more than the regular expression these days.

Deanston 18yo 1977/1996 (54.7%, Cadenhead's, Distilled November 1977, Bottled January 1996)
Nose: Strong late summer fruits. None of the usual 'farmy' notes that I get in Deanston. At least...
There is some dust and rotting milk powder far in the background. More cask than country...
Taste: Very hot - I needed to add some water right away. With a few drops it really opens up.
Still powerful at slightly below 50%, but much better. Excellent mouth feel with smoke in the finish.
Score: 87 points - which makes it my new favourite Deanston expression, beating the Deanston NAS (40%, OB, "100% Highland", Late 1970's) at 83 points, Deanston 25yo (40%, OB, Burn Stewart, Decanter with silver cork, Bottled +/-2000) at 82 points and Deanston 25yo 1977/2003 (50.3%, Cadenhead's, Bourbon HH, 198 Bts.) at 81 points. All other expressions I've tried scored below 80 points.

So.... Reason enough to wrap up the refurbished Deanston distillery profile in the DD section as well...
Check it out - it's a fairly obscure distillery, so you might learn something new. ;-)

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #331 - Walpurgis Spring Session 2008

April 30, 2008 - So, it's that time
of the year again... It's the day of
institutional nationalist madness in
Holland; our old queen's birthday...
Especially Amsterdam is a place to
avoid for sociophobes like myself.
The streets and canals are packed
with people and it takes hours to
get anywhere. It's the one day in
the year when many Dutchmen and
-women allow themselves to act
silly, and in most cases it's painfully
obvious that we usually just lack
the talent for it...
 
So, wasn't there anything useful
I could be doing while avoiding the
royalist mobs? Yes, there was...
I locked myself in my room for a
little 'walpurgis' session with some
exotic whiskies on my shelves. Most
of these came from Dr. Kraaijeveld,
our professor of xenomaltology.

The first single malt on my list came from the Glenora distillery in Nova Scotia, Canada.
Just like many Scots, the Canadians use lightly peated (Scottish) barley for the 'wash', a pair of pot stills for the spirit and maturation in ex-bourbon casks to turn that spirit into whisky. So, here are my notes...

Glen Breton 10yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007, Canada)
Neus: Eucalyptus and the aroma's of an old candy store. More organics after some breathing.
Smaak: Dry and perfumy - and slightly soapy on my palate. This combination doesn't really work for me.
Score: 52 points - the Canadians can still learn a few tricks from the Scots - or the Irish for that matter...

So, at the moment I'm not really charmed yet by this Canadian product.
Single malt whisky is still the category where you can find the very best whiskies (IMHO), but in this case I can think of quite a few grain whiskies and even blends I'd rather drink than this Glen Breton 10yo.
So - let's see what happens when they mix Canadian whisky with bourbon...

Phillips Union (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, Blend of Kentucky Bourbon & Canadian Whisky)
Nose: Starts incredibly sweet with a faint touch of apple. Alcohol in the background. Almond liqueur?
Not complex. Over time the grainy elements become more pronounced. Fairly simple, but quite enjoyable.
Taste: Mocca. Very sweet as well; reminds me a bit of Italian Galliano liqueur. Nutty overtones - coconut?
Smooth start and centre, but the mouth feel becomes hotter and gritty towards the bitterish finish.
Score: 55 points - almost like a liqueur. Quite different from a Scotch malt whisky but enjoyable.
I actually had it at 59 points for a long time, but the rough finish pulls off a few points.

That was most certainly not boring - and more to my liking than most of the bourbons and Canadian whiskies I've tried so far. But it has such strong aroma's and flavours that I'm wondering if they perhaps added some 'secret ingredients' - which is allowed in Canadian whisky. So let's move South for three purely American products...

Bernheim NAS 'Original' (45%, OB, Kentucky Straight Wheat Whisky, USA)
Nose: Very sweet but little complexity. Very much like a bourbon, actually. Enjoyable but simple.
After ten minutes of breathing it opened up a bit - but not enough to make my heart grow fonder.
Taste: Bourbony. Hot and smooth, but just like the nose it offers very little complexity.
Score: 47 points - based on my very limited experience so far, rye whiskey seems to offer more potential.
That being said; I imagine this wheat whiskey wasn't matured in very good casks for very long...

Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey 2001 (47%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, USA)
Nose: Fruity, expressive and quite chemical. The fruits become ever more dominant over time.
Quite exquisite and surprisingly complex. Black currants, cassis, some raspberries, 'fruits de bois'.
Taste: Ough.... Here the chemicals have overpowered the fruits. They return in the finish though...
Score: 68 points - still a little rough around the edges, but interesting and quite enjoyable.

Old Portrero 11yo (50%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, USA)
Nose: Whooh... Paint thinner at first. Sweet. Then 'older' fruity notes emerge. Like 'Asbach Uralt' brandy.
It lacks complexity compared to Scotch whisky, but I enjoy it more than most bourbons like Jim Beam.
After about half an hour the nose finally opened up a bit more, with some dust perhaps water melon.
Taste: Again, some chemical paint thinner in the start. More like a bourbon here than in the nose.
Sweet. Very smooth mouth feel with an evaporating finish, just like most bourbon whiskeys I've tried.
Score: 54 points - to tell you the truth I had expected more after some people raved about it.

Still, plenty of interesting stuff going on in the America's at the moment, it would seem.
And what about the rest of the world? Well, so far I've only tasted a fraction of the 'exotic' whiskies that are available in the world. One of the blank area's on my map of the whisky world was Pakistan, but thanks to a package from Lex that will now change. One wouldn't expect a whisky distillery in this hotbed of muslimism, but the Rawalpindi distillery was actually established over a century ago. In 1899 Pakistan was still part of the British colonial empire. Rawalpindi distillery is owned by the Murree Brewery Company, who later changed the name of the distillery to Murree. According to Lex Kraaijeveld, the distillery still has floor maltings, a Saladin box, four large stainless steel wash stills and two large copper spirit stills. Maturation takes place in barrels and vats which are stored in underground cellars. So - enough 'theory' for now - let's move on to the whisky...

Murree 8yo 'Malt Whisky Classic' (43%, OB, Pakistan, Bottled +/- 2006)
Nose: Mostly paint thinner at first. Later sweeter notes emerge, but more 'molasses' than 'grains'.
Nutty, oily, buttery. I have a bit of a sweet tooth, so I don't mind sweetness - but there's little complexity.
Hey, wait... After 15 minutes there IS some development and it opens up a bit. I kind of like it...
Taste: Weak start, then a fairly long prickling centre. Depressing finish that takes a bitter turn in the end.
Score: 43 points - the nose isn't that unpleasant actually, but there's no fun to be had on the palate.

Murree 12yo 'Millennium Reserve' (43%, OB, Pakistan, Bottled +/- 2006)
Nose: Nutty start. More complex than the 8yo with more fruity notes. Passion fruits. Hint of dust.
Fruits take over from nuts and passion fruit remains the dominant element. Slightly metallic?
Hey, and unlike the 8yo, this one shows quite some development. Still, the passion fruit remains.
Taste: A little perfumy in the start. More fruits later on - passion fruits again. Dusty finish.
Score: 62 points - but once again the finish pulls it down. The nose alone reaches the upper 60's.
With the profile of some recent Scottish releases like the Fettercairn dropping (I scored the most recent batch I tried at 61 points) it seems they suddenly have serious competition from Pakistan - of all places...

So, I preferred the 12yo Murree over the 8yo by quite a wide margin.
Oddly enough, Lex felt very differently when he tried them; he preferred the 8yo and considered the 12yo almost too weird to be considered 'whisky'. So, a perfect example that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; which whisky is the 'best' depends on your purely personal preferences...

And that's it for this tasting report. Tasting these exotic whiskies briefly inspired me to get back to work on the refurbishment of the 'deviant drams' section - but then I remembered that I still have some 75 Scottish distillery profiles to finish for the distillery data section. So, I'll get back to work on the profiles for Glencadam (because a bottle of the new independent bottler Single & Single is 'en route' for review) and Laphroaig (because I've just received the excellent book by Marcel van Gils on the distillery).

Watch this space for the reviews as they arrive...

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #330 - No Comment...

No further comments...
 
Well, wait... I had no comments when I first posted this screenshot - around 11:00 PM...

13:30 Update - About an hour after I had posted the screenshot, I refreshed the page with the poll results and the percentage of 'no' votes had suddenly dropped to 64%! That was extremely weird to say the least. I had received a message about the poll yesterday and forwarded it to the other malt maniacs after casting my own vote - a heartfelt 'no', of course... Some of the other maniacs cast their votes as well, and over the past day or so the percentage of 'no' votes has hovered around the 75% mark (see the screenshot.) It seems that Robin Tucek was right when he suggested possible 'shenanigans' from the SWA and/or 'big whisky' to manipulate the results of the poll. So, I quickly sent a message to the members of the MM Mailinglist and asked them to submit their votes as well. Just in time too - within half an hour after I sent the message the poll closed.

Fortunately, the 'no' votes had crawled back up to 75% - and I've already received complaints from mailing list members that were too late to cast their 'no' votes. Interestingly enough, the number of 'don't know' votes had dropped from 8% around 11:00 PM to just 3% by the time the poll was over. The number of 'yes' votes had grown from 15% to 20% during the same time. That means that around half of the votes in the poll on this issue (which lasted a week) were cast in the last two hours - and there's 2% of the votes unaccounted for ;-)

Meanwhile, I've added three fresh profiles to the Distillery Data section; Balblair, Balmenach and Balvenie.

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #329 - Baby Steps...

April 13, 2008 - The reconstruction
process of Malt Madness proceeds
slow and unsteady, but at least I've
made SOME progress lately. For one
thing, I've updated the Hit List in the
mAlmanac. I've also added a brand new
list that focuses on the most recent
releases; the Hot List. It contains a
selection of the most noteworthy
recent releases - all IMHO of course.
 
I've also added two fresh distillery
profiles to the 'Distillery Data section;
one on Caol Ila (because I had planned
to do a tasting but got a cold), and one
on Glenallachie (because it's such a
rare malt that there really wasn't much
to tell - so I could wrap it up quickly... ;-)
 
Other news: the Braeval (a.k.a. Braes
of Glenlivet) distillery will be re-opened
in July 2008. Braeval was mothballed
by Chivas Brothers in August 2002.
Also: a new Hanyu distillery in Japan.

Yet more 'news': the results of last year's Malt Maniacs Awards are still trickling through the cracks of the international whisky world. Our Taiwanese maniac Ho-cheng sent us this picture of a six page article in a Taiwanese whisky magazine. I can't actually read it, but I'm enjoying it nonetheless... Meanwhile, Serge has just published a fresh version of the matrix and the monitor on WhiskyFun. There are now more that 10,000 different whiskies on the monitor! Serge also played around with some statistics. By now well over a dozen maniacs have crossed the 1000 malts mark on our individual 'track records'. It seems that the average malt maniac (well, at least Davin, Ho-cheng, Michel and myself) samples an average of exactly 33 new malt whiskies each month.

In fact, if we're talking 'collectively', we have hundreds of years of whisky drinking experience.
Hmmm.... If we used the same leaps of faith and 'transfer of property' that the PR agencies of some distilleries use to track their own lineage back to the 18th century, we could turn that fact into an interesting claim.
One could argue that the malt maniacs have been drinking whisky since before it was invented ;-)

Anyway - that was the 'news' for now...
Here are my tasting notes for a few 'standard' malts fellow maniac Michel and I enjoyed at a tasting for the Dutch 'Whisky Etcetera' magazine in the town of Uithoorn. Apart from the whiskies below, we enjoyed some local delicacies, like smoked sausages and the 'beer cheese' produced by the brewer that hosted the tasting.
Highly enjoyable! As for the malts...

An Cnoc 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - an affordable malt whisky for less than 30 Euro's.
Nose: Glue. 'Slime' - the chemical play stuff from the 1970's. Chemical banana (Cardhu?) later on.
Taste: Nothing offensive, but nothing too remarkable either - at least not during a busy 'social' session...
Score: 70 points - still an enjoyable malt whisky, but it has slipped a little down the scale since the 1990's.

Benriach 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - my favourite of the day, but not everybody agreed.
Nose: Spicy. Wet dog. Sweet and sweaty. Quite complex and expressive. Some rough edges though.
Taste: A powerful presence with a whiff of smoke. However, it lacks the complexity of the nose.
Score: 79 points - just a smidgen too rough on the palate to reach the 80's.

Fettercairn 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - quite a drop down from the 'Old' Fettercairn.
Nose: Grainy and quite sharp. Not very expressive or complex though. Sweetens out after breathing.
Taste: A flat profile with a rough and sharp mouth feel. Quite bitter, especially in the finish.
Score: 61 points - a significant drop down from some 1990's batches that scored in the lower 70's.

Glen Moray 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - used to be an affordable 'benchmark' malt.
Nose: Prickly. Chloride. Some subtle fruits (kiwi) emerges after a while. Not as 'round' as it used to be.
Taste: Chalk and yoghurt - I'm afraid that's all my notes say. So, not too expressive I guess.
Score: 70 points - this old favourite has now ended up at the bottom of the 'average' bracket.

Tamdhu NAS (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - the most affordable good malt in our local cornershop.
Nose: Starts off fruity, followed by grain attick and dust. Fresh dough. A beautiful round profile.
Taste: Fairly weak start, needs some time. A little chalky. Nice, solid centre - but weaker in the finish. 
Score: 75 points - this expression has remained affordable for over a decade and just got better.

Tamnavulin 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - admittedly, this was never a real favourite of mine...
Nose: Dusty & grassy with herbs in the back of the nose. String beans. Flowery & sweeter after breathing.
Taste: It feels quite rough on the palate. Some bitterness - although not quite as much as the Fettercairn.
Score: 71 points - but it needs some time to get there...

And that's it for now - I'll cover a few more 'exotic' drams in my next log entry...

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #328 - An Open Consultation

March 25, 2008 - The more we've learned about the
'consultation process' behind the new SWA proposals that
I mentioned in my previous log entry, the more paranoid
we became. As it turns out, Mark Reynier's comments shed
some light on the tip of a massive iceberg. And over the past
Easter weekend we've found that there are several rabbit
holes below the iceberg - and we're only beginning to get
a clue about how deep they really are...

The SWA (Scotch Whisky Association) is a lobby organisation
for the Scotch whisky industry that represents most of the
large whisky producers like Diageo. They claim to have the
consumer's interests at heart, but that's only the case when
those interests are identical to the interests of the whisky
industry. In reality, they often are not - and sometimes they
are even at odds with eachother. This may very well be one
of those times.

Are they trying to 'pull a fast one' and 'sneak one by us'?
The SWA claims to have done 'market research' that shows
that introduction of the phrase 'blended malt' was necessary
to avoid confusion. However, when we asked about the
market research they were 'not at liberty to divulge that
information'. Interestingly enough, when the maniacs first
heard about the weird phrase a while ago we asked around
and NOBODY seemed to think it avoided any confusion.

In fact, there WAS little confusion until they came up with the phrase.
Since nearly everybody we talked to felt it was a dim-witten idea, we felt that the phrase would never catch on and would disappear again eventually. But it seems they are going to give it another try. During the past week I've received messages on this topic from well over a hundred people (I'm guessing around 130 or 140, dozens of them from within the industry) - and the only two people who thought was a good idea were an SWA member and an SWA spokesperson. So, that's a bit of a 'he said, she said' conundrum, isn't it?

It's strange how the results of our 'market research' (over 98% opposed to the phrase 'blended malt') are so radically different from the SWA's. When we dug a little deeper we found that the phrase originated within a mysterious 'work group' that's operation mostly behind the scenes. Many whisky lovers working in 'the industry' have already informed us that the 'extensive consultation process' didn't include them, so this looks more and more like an effort of the major whisky producers to diffuse the lines between single malts and blends. The SWA invited some maniacs to come to Scotland to discuss the issue after the dust had settled, but as a lobby organisation they are not in a position to change their position - so I'm not sure what good that would do. Instead, the maniacs have taken it upon themselves to step forward as representatives of a small part of the consumers in the world - and offer an alternative classification in five easy to understand categories in the public arena of the world wide web;

Single Malt Whisky
Malt Whisky
Single Grain Whisky
Grain Whisky
Blended Whisky

Easy as pie - at least 98% of our focus group seems to think so ;-)
Granted, one could still use the phrase 'vatted' for options #2 and #4, but strictly speaking that's not even neccessary. However, IF you want to give mixtures of the same type of whisky from different distilleries a specific name, use the name that consumers have used happily and unconfused for ages: vatted. Do NOT try to actually enhance confusion because that would be good for the 'bread & butter' blends (mixtures of different types of whisky).

Today is the last day to send feedback about the proposals to the SWA.
In an earlier e-conversation about this Campbell Evans of the SWA wrote (and I quote): 'I can assure you that the category description Blended Malt Scotch Whisky only emerged after considerable discussion within the working group drawn from companies of all types and sizes across the industry. The working group considered a broad and numerous variety of descriptions over several months, so it was not a case of saying this is what we want to do and having any hidden agenda to achieve it. (...) One final thought. A number of companies have, in advance of the legislation, already launched Blended Malt bottlings. My understanding is that these are doing very well, and thus far there have been no adverse comments of confusion to come our way.'

As I said, I've actually received many 'adverse comments of confusion' myself.
I've informed the SWA's Campbell Evans of that very fact and would like to encourage everybody that agrees with us that the phrase 'blended malt' is nonsensical to contact the SWA and/or DEFRA.

SWA: info@swa.org.uk
DEFRA: Stuart.Cooper@defra.gsi.gov.uk

There are numerous other interesting points for debate in the proposed legislation, but for now this is the issue that has ignited the largest controversy and debate amongst the certified malt maniacs...
So, you can expect some more on this in the next issue of Malt Maniacs.

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

Entry #327 - Bruichladdich versus the SWA

March 21, 2008 - We're having odd virtual weather
lately. This Spring certainly started with a shitstorm
when I forwarded a press release from Bruichladdich's
Mark Reynier to the members of the MM Mailinglist.
In the press release, Mark 'paraphrased' a number
of proposals from the SWA, which lead me to believe
that the new rules could herald the end of the whisky
world as we know it. However, as it turns out I may
have jumped to conclusions just a tad too soon...
 
More about the fine print and finer points in the SWA
draft proposal and Mark's press release later on in
this log entry; first it's time for some fresh tasting
notes. After all, it has been 3 months since my last
tasting report and some readers are getting antsy...

I didn't need to browse through my stack of samples for very long, actually.
As soon as I noticed three forgotten samples of Bruichladdich at the back I knew I found the perfect malts to entertain me while I tried to make heads or tales of the legal lingo of the ongoing debate on the new SWA regulations - and wrap up the refurbishment of the Bruichladdich distillery profile in the DD section.
Here are my notes on three expressions that were bottled a few years ago;

Bruichladdich 16yo 1979/1995 (43%, Signatory, C#834-35)
Nose: Clean and grassy, sweetening out. Balanced. Grassy notes evolve to 'veggy' notes. String beans?
Growing complexity with notes of dust and freshly sawn dry wood. More alcoholic over time. Rubber?
Taste: Quite sharp with a very satisfying after burn in the throat. Trace of peat, but not much.
Score: 78 points - although it might have reached the 80's based on the nose alone.

Bruichladdich 1990/2003 'Valinch Flora McBabe' (55.2%, OB, C#3666, 700 Bts., D. 09/'90 Btl. 12/'03)
Nose: Whiff of smoke and organics; a lot of 'balls' for a Bunny. Then more perfumy notes emerge.
Some artificial blackberry candy fruits. Cassis? Was this wine finished? Later more chalk and clay.
Taste: Easily drinkable at cask strength. Smooth with a solid after burn. Faint dry, slightly peaty finish.
Score: 82 points - which is once again a few points below those awarded by other maniacs.
It started out in the mid 80's for me, but lost steam after a few minutes. Light tannins, flat finish.

Bruichladdich 1989/2004 (57.9%, G&M Reserve, C#1957, 275 Bts.)
Nose: Polished with quite some wood. Raisins & other fruits in the background - my kind of profile.
Growing complexity. Possibly more cask influence than distillery influence but I like it a lot.
Taste: Loads of smoke - hardly recognisable as a Bruichladdich! Quite some wood too.
Nice fruity tannins and anthracite in the finish. Wonderful mouth feel; powerful yet smooth at c/s.
Score: 89 points - which makes it one of the very best Laddies I've ever tried.

So, with some Bruichladdich in my stomach I was inspired to delve into the debate again...
You can find the full texts of the exchange on the Malt Maniacs & Friends group on Facebook, but I've collected some of the highlights in this log entry. The debate really took off when Campbell Evand of the SWA officially respond to my message to members of the MM Mailinglist which included Mark's press release.
It started friendly and innocent enough...

"Johannes, I understand that you have been writing to fellow whisky lovers and circulating copies of Mark Reynier's paper 'Recipe for Confusion'. If I may, I should like to offer the following observations on Mark's claims, and hope that having read these comments you may feel that not all is as troubling as Mark has made out; whilst Mark acknowledges much of the proposed legislation brought forward by DEFRA is worthwhile, he suggests 'some feel it's a smokescreen to further enhance the commercial interests of a self-regulated industry'. The whole point of legislation is that it is not self-regulation, but law."

Ah, that's where my brain first stumbled...
As a slightly cynical skeptic with a twisted sense of humour I can (on occasion) enjoy PR and legal language.
In this modern day and age copywriters, politicians and lawyers have perfected the fine art of sophistry and it seems some of the most gifted artists are working in Scotland. If the industry writes the 'draft' for a law which basically only needs to be signed off by a legislator, that would seem pretty self-regulated to me...

<snip> "Mark 'paraphrases' the new Regulations in his note to editors. What this means in reality is that he has selectively missed out important provisions which contradict his argument."

Erm, yes..., well...
I agree Mark's paraphrasing was a bit misleading, but isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
The SWA (Scotch Whisky Association) tries to 'sell' their proposed legal definitions of various categories by quoting 'market research' that they are 'not at liberty to divulge'. And there seem to be some 'smoke screen' tactics going on as well... Most of the 'maniacs' I've talked to were not too concerned about most of the proposed regulations - it was the pushing of the new phrase 'blended malt' over the old phrase 'vatted malt ' that caused the most concern. This part of the discussion is often conveniently circumvented.

<snip> "Mark is concerned about customer confusion, so it is strange that he is selling a product distilled and matured at Bruichladdich, but labelled Port Charlotte at the same time as talking up the reopening of a separate distillery to be called Port Charlotte, also to sell a product called Port Charlotte."

Ah - I would say Campbell DOES make a good point there.
Mark's own activities at Bruichladdich haven't always helped making the whisky world less confusing...
But perhaps it would be best to let Mark respond himself;

"Likeable fellow that he is, Campbell is being disingenuous here – as his role inevitably necessitates. I think from the SWA's reaction, here and elsewhere, it is clear that I have touched a raw nerve, perhaps a subject that they had hoped in 5 days time would have slipped by with out any one noticing. The usual tactic of the SWA when faced with the impertinence of any one daring to criticise them, is to immediately discredit/patronise the critic, and exert their power over the media and influential parties, in a realpolitik way. Par for the course I am afraid along with the usual sniping from the cowardly picadors on the sidelines. My interest in this issue is not only as a distiller, but as an observer (the only person it would appear) of the SWA and it's mighty paymasters, and what they get up to. Scotch Whisky does not belong to the SWA."

<snip> "It is the SWA that has put forward these proposals to Defra to consult on, as it says in the intro to the consultation – but there seems precious little consulting going on. I've had two distillery brands call me up saying they knew nothing of the whole process! All I can get out of Campbell is "we will have to agree to disagree" that there is even a potential issue here. Firstly, let's be clear that Campbell is commenting on emails we have exchanged, a press release that I sent to a few interested parties, and various comments here. <snip> The regulation, taken together, would indicate that Campbell's assertion is not so clear cut: The inference is that I paraphrased the regulation in an unfair way. However I indicated that I had paraphrased the regulation, and this was for clarity. I also added a supplementary paragraph about 10 (2) C in the accompanying notes. The relevant text of the regulation is below:

Regulation 10 (2) The name of a distillery must not appear on any labelling or individual packaging of any blended malt, blended grain, or blended scotch whisky, or be used in connection with any advertisement or promotion of such whiskies, unless -
 
(a) the reference to the distillery only appears as part of a description of the whisky;
(b) a scotch whisky that has been distilled at a named distillery has been included in the blend making up the the final blend; and
(c it is clear from the presentation of the product that not all the whisky was distilled at that distillery.
 
(3) But paragraph (2) shall not prevent -
(a) the use of a name of a distillery that is included in the name of a brand of blended malt, blended grain, or blended scotch whisky mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule being used in relation to that brand;
 
Etc.

Now I am no lawyer, but this indicates to me that the name of a distillery CAN appear on a label if a scotch whisky that has been distilled at a named distillery has been included in the blend making up the the final whisky – and as long as a reference is made that there are several whiskies in it (obviously blended malt alone does not explain this!) so for example Bruichladdich Blended Malt could have 99% other malts in it as long as it says "a rare selection of single malt whiskies from Scotland's finest distilleries"? Or "Malts Galore!", or "Rent a Malt" etc etc.? Is that what it means? We have the potential situation that the category is 'blended malt' but Glen Other SINGLE MALT is plastered all over it. Incidentally, in sub clause (a) how do you define the difference between a distillery name as a description of a whisky and a distillery name as a brand?" <snip>

At this point in the discussion it occurred to me that things may have grown a little 'technical' (or perhaps even boring) for the average reader of Malt Madness. So, for now I'll point you to the Malt Maniacs & Friends group on facebook for further arguments in the discussion. The next issue of Malt Maniacs will delve a little deeper into the topic. I'll finish this log entry with Mark's response to a point made by Campbell;

(Campbell) "As regards the description 'Blended Malt Scotch Whisky' and 'Blended Grain Scotch Whisky', Mark's suggestions for alternatives were 'Pot Still Scotch Whisky' and "Patent Still Scotch Whisky". In addition to the fact that these descriptions will be meaningless to 99% of consumers worldwide, it appeared to ignore the fact that it did not distinguish between Single Malts and Blended Malts, and Single Grains and Blended Grains, as Single Malt Scotch Whisky is also 'Pot Still Scotch Whisky', and Single Grain Scotch Whisky is also 'Patent Still Scotch Whisky'. It is all very well criticising the description which has been chosen, but Mark has not been able to come up with an appropriate alternative."

(Mark) "Any one who has had the misfortune to wade their way through these regulations is bound to be as confused by all the blended this and blended that's let alone the consumer. Since the SWA want to introduce 3 new titles, why not go the whole hog and try and choose names that while being visually distinctive and therefore not open to misinterpretation - either deliberate or subconscious – describe what the whisky is about: Blended whisky speaks for itself of course. But we have single malt. What's so single about it? the grain or the distillery? And what does malt mean to most consumers anyway?
Let's be honest, I bet if you asked 100 people very few could tell you what 'malt' referred to.
It begs the question what's a double malt? Two types of malted grain – or two types of malted whisky from 2 distilleries? But whatever people think it means, Single Malt as a term has stuck. While 'blended malt' does indeed describe a selection of malts mixed together, so does Vatted Malt, which was perfectly good explanation around for some 100 years or more and more importantly, and can not be visually confused with either single or blended, which really is the issue here.
If 'vatted' already existed, why change it?
Unless the ambiguity is deliberate – a confusion of two existing very well known terms blended whisky and single malt. 'Single Grain' implies something different to 'Single Malt' when in reality it is the distilling procedure that is different – so why not say so? Pot stills and Patent or column stills are more relevant to the different whiskies than grain and barley, especially since both use the same anyhow. Since the punter is barely going to notice the 'grain or 'malt' and see/refer to just 'single' should it not be made more clear what they are really getting? There are a mere handful of 'grain distilleries' there is no need for 'single grain' as a title; patent still scotch whisky and the distillery name would suffice, while protecting single malt at the same time – unless some sort of 'reflected glory' is the aim.... Why don't you guys come up with some clearly distinctive, unambiguous terms – you buy the stuff after all. But don't hold your breathe, as Campbell tells me:"

(Campbell) "I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree on the compulsory sales categories. Our Working Group, representing a variety of companies in the industry, discussed this issue for months before they reached a view , and they went over every conceivable option and considered suggestions put up by others. I very much doubt they are going to change their position now."

Indeed - and that's the part that concerns many of the malt maniacs...
So, we'll get a little deeper into this issue in the next issue of Malt Maniacs - expected in a few weeks...

Sweet drams,

Johannes
 

70 - An Cnoc 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - Fairly chemical in the nose (banana), but nice enough.
82 - Auchentoshan 16yo 1988 (58.9%, OB for M&H, Bourbon, C#4445, 156 Bts.) - A very decent Lowlander.
79 - Benriach 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - Not quite as spectacular as some other recent releases.
83 - Benriach 15yo 1991/2006 'Tawny Port Wood' (53%, OB, C#6921, Port hogshead for Taiwan)
47 - Bernheim NAS 'Original' (45%, OB, Kentucky Straight Wheat Whisky, USA) - better than Jack Daniels.
83 - Bowmore NAS 'Cask Strength' (56%, OB, Bottled 2007) - This bottling showed notable improvement.
81 - Cragganmore 1993/2006 Distillers Edition (40%, OB, Port Wood Finish)
87 - Deanston 18yo 1977/1996 (54.7%, Cadenhead's, Distilled November 1977, Bottled January 1996)
61 - Fettercairn 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - Quite a drop down from the 'Old' Fettercairn.
52 - Glen Breton 10yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007, Canada) - Too soapy and perfumy for my tastes.
79 - Glencadam 15yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - some improvement over the previous '2005' batch.
80 - Glencadam 16yo 1991/2007 (46%, Single & Single, 75cl) - complex, but on the 'bourbony' side.
76 - Glenlivet 18yo (43%, OB, +/-2005, New label) - a more recent batch I've tried was significantly better.
77 - Glenmorangie NAS 'Madeira Wood Finish' (43%, OB, +/-2004) - Still my favourite of the set.
75 - Glenmorangie NAS 'Port Wood Finish' (43%, OB, +/-2004) - Seems to be slipping like its siplings.
71 - Glenmorangie NAS 'Sherry Wood Finish' (43%, OB, +/-2004) - Not really my cup of tea.
70 - Glen Moray 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - Another old favourite that has fallen from grace.
85 - Highland Park 17yo 1987/2005 (51.3%, SMWS, 4.102 'Smoked duck a l'orange') - Lovely, lovely...
79 - Knockando 1980/2005 (48.3%, Duncan Taylor) - a good whisky, but nothing really stands out.
43 - Murree 8yo 'Malt Whisky Classic' (43%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, Pakistan) - Not really my cup of tea...
62 - Murree 12yo 'Millennium Reserve' (43%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, Pakistan) - More to my liking.
54 - Old Portrero 11yo (50%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, USA) - Better than most bourbons, but too neutral.
55 - Phillips Union (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, Blend of Kentucky Bourbon & Canadian Whisky)
77 - Singleton of Dufftown 12yo (40%, OB, +/- 2007) - Too bad I didn't try it H2H with the other Singletons.
68 - Stranahan's Colorado Whiskey 2001 (47%, OB, Bottled +/- 2006, USA) - quite a pleasant surprise.
75 - Tamdhu NAS (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - This Tamdhu breaks the general trend; great value.
71 - Tamnavulin 12yo (40%, OB, Bottled +/- 2007) - This was never a real favorite, but it's consistent...
 

After the big overhaul of this website in 2006 and 2007 I've switched to a 'seasonal' rhythm for the HTML pages in my Liquid Log. At the end of each season I send my scores to our French malt maniac Serge who adds them to the Malt Maniacs Monitor and Malt Maniacs Matrix - along with the most recent scores of the other maniacs. So, you don't have to take my word for it; the matrix and monitor offer tens of thousands of scores for thousands of different whiskies. The new 'Specials' section on Malt Maniacs (scroll to the bottom of the home page to find it) offers tasting notes for a few dozen recently released single malts. As far as my personal ' Track Record' is concerned; I've stopped updating it after I passed the 2000 malts mark, but the last time I checked malt mileage was +/- 2400 single malt Scotch whiskies seriously sampled & scored...