The Exclusive Malts 1997 Clynelish 15 Year Old – Review

•May 15, 2013 • Leave a Comment

Clynelish

*Thanks to SF and the good folks at Impex Beverages for the sample.

Clynelish is pronounced KLYNE-leesh or klein-LEESH depending on what sylLABle you’d like to put the emPHAsis on. The name means “slope of the garden” in Gaelic, though the garden in question might just be the metaphorical garden of the eastern coastal Highlands of Scotland. The Diageo-owned distillery is located just about a mile inland from the North Sea in the little town of Brora and is one of the largest producing distilleries in Diageo’s large stable. In true big-company madness, this relatively new (built in 1967) distillery is not the original Clynelish. The original Clynelish distillery is located right next door to the new Clynelish and was called Clynelish until the new Clynelish was built and then it was renamed and called Brora until it was closed in 1983. Today, some of Clynelish’s whisky is matured in the moody, dark brick warehouses of Brora but these days, that’s pretty much all that happens there…maybe every once in a while, a few furtive whisky writers sneak in and take hurried snapshots in the rain, but that’s a story for a different time. The majority of Clynelish’s output goes into the Johnnie Walker blends, but a fair amount is bottled as a single malt and is part of the Classic Malts line-up.

This independently bottled 15 year old, single-cask expression is part of the Creative Whisky Company’s Exclusive Malts range, which is newly available in the U.S. starting this Spring. It was distilled in 1997, matured in a “refill ex-sherry hogshead” (I’m guessing that means European oak), and yielded up 275 bottles.

The Nose:  A subtly fragrant and deceivingly complex nose. Heather-y, floral honey, buttery soft pears, and lemon curd on cinnamon pancakes. Nice milk chocolate notes and bright wood spice follow – fresh-cut wood, soft cinnamon and green coriander. Things get even more interesting with a bit more open time, a warm waxy hint is joined by roasted nuts, and an almost tiny, briny (shhh, I know) wisp of savory peat. Water livens up the spice and brings out a greenish, un-ripe fruit quality, while losing some of the more subtle, interesting notes.

The Palate:  An absolutely incredible mouthfeel, light, creamy, oily all at once, it’s coating and almost airy at the same time. That waxy quality is more present right away, as are deeper wood spice notes. More flowery honey, a bit of lemon meringue and burnt sugar is followed by roasted and salted nuts, but that doesn’t last long. The wood spice looms large on the palate and has an almost savory, earthy quality; damp clove, coriander, vanilla bean, raw ginger, and black pepper. A thin hint of herbaceous peat and green wood smoke carry over into the finish. Water draws out the already impressive palate wonderfully, letting that honey flow across the now subdued spices, letting everything breathe a bit.

The Finish:  Nice and lingering. That continued honey sweetness, and peppery, tannic, slightly earthy woodspice with just a breath of smoke and briny peat (or is that my imagination?) at the last.

Thoughts:  Excellent whisky, though not necessarily an easy one to figure out. I found it a little restrained and challenging, but so well worth the effort. The nose is the least eager to give up its secrets, but a little patience reveals a lot of subtle complexity. The palate on the other hand, while carrying over much of what’s found on the nose, really lets it all loose at once making it tricky to get a handle on. For me, water toned down the nose too much, removing a lot of the complexity, I would concede that maybe I added too much if it wasn’t for what I thought water did for the palate. Here, I felt it really improved an already impressive array of flavors by giving them all a little more room to breath. It was interesting to taste this alongside the official 14 year old release. They were similar, but while the 14 year old is more balanced and refined, showing a little more of that waxy character, this one was a bit more complex and unique…just as you’d expect a single cask should be. I think this is one of those whiskies that while you would really enjoy the first glass, it would get better each time you sit down with it. Definitely recommended.

The Exclusive Malts 1997 Clynelish 15 Year Old, Speyside, IB-2012

53.5% ABV

Score:  87

Posted in Scotch, Speyside, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Exclusive Malts 1988 Littlemill 24 Year Old – Review

•May 11, 2013 • Leave a Comment

LITTLEMILL

*Thanks to SF and the good folks at Impex Beverages for the sample.

Poor Littlemill. The last several years of its life were none to kind to one of the more interesting malt whisky distilleries in Scotland. Starting in the mid-80′s, the Lowland distillery opened and closed in fits and starts until finally being closed and dismantled in 1997. Any hope of bringing it back to life went up in flames in 2004 when the remaining buildings went up in flames. Apparently, one of the more unique recent aspects of Littlemill were the rectifying columns on top of the pot stills which made possible the production of three distinct types of spirits the distillery experimented with in the 60′s. Ostensibly, these different styles were to be used in blends; there was the lighter, Lowland style of “Littlemill”, the mildly peated, more robust “Dunglas(s)”, and the heavily peated “Dumbuck”. The Dunglas and Dumbuck styles were discontinued in 1972, with only the Dunglas ever seeing the light of day as an independent bottling.

This 24 year old Littlemill from the Creative Whisky Company’s Exclusive Malts range was distilled in late 1988…which is a little mystifying seeing as all the information I’ve read on Littlemill says the distillery was closed from 1984 to 1989. Who knows, it’s not unlikely that a bit of production was happening by the end of 1988 and the dates out there are just approximate, but it is a little eyebrow raising. Around this time, major refurbishment took place, but whether that happened before (probably) or after this was distilled just might be a mystery for the ages. In any case, this one was matured in an American Oak re-fill hogshead and yielded 348 bottles.

The Nose:  Quite the unique nose on this one. Initially, there’s floral honey, under-ripe melon, vegetal notes of fresh-cut grass, and slight feint-y notes of plastic. Lemon peel and tart lemon icing follow along with wet linen drying on the line. Quite a bit of wood represented as well; fresh-cut oak, vanilla extract, and a hint of anisette. Adding water to this gives it more “roundness” and plays up the lemony, fresh laundry aspect as well as keeping the damp leaves, grass, and fresh oak in the mix.

The Palate:  Thin, a little oily and woody, though pleasantly so. Still quite leafy and vegetal with a honeyed sweetness that carries over from the nose. Some slightly charred bread, a saltiness, and faint touches of wet tobacco leaf add a unique counterpoint to any expected sweetness. Quite tannic, with more cut oak, raw clove, allspice, and coriander. I was surprised to find a faint smoky quality towards the end, not peaty nor ashy, sort of like the charred logs the morning after a fire.

The Finish:  Lingering with dark chocolate, clove, salt, a dried herb quality, and that wisp of dry smoke.

Thoughts:  Interesting stuff that kept me very intrigued despite it being a flavor profile that’s not my favorite. There’s quite a bit of wood influence, as you might expect for 24 years, but I found that it worked well with the pleasantly different leafy/vegetal/herbal quality. Though the ABV is not scorchingly high, I found a bit of water helped to smooth out and give some room to the unique flavors. Like I said, a very interesting whisky, each time I raised the glass, I found myself thinking, “I’m not sure I like this one”, but then, by mid-sip, I was thinking, “No, I think I do like this one.” A moody Lowlander, good for those contemplative spring thunderstorm days.

The Exclusive Malts 1988 Littlemill 24 Year Old, Lowland, IB 2012

49.8% ABV

Score:  84

Posted in Lowland, Scotch, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Robert Parker enters the Whisky World…

•May 9, 2013 • 3 Comments

True to form, I missed the window on this by a day or so, but that’s never stopped me before so what the hell. Last week, the news slowly seeped out that the wine world’s high priest, Robert Parker had posted a bunch of bourbon reviews on his paid-members-only website. Earlier this week, the ruggedly handsome Dave Driscoll posted on his K&L Spirits Journal, Parker’s small batch of “reviews” in its entirety for all to read. Suffice to say there were quite a few errors, quite a few head-scratching comments, and quite a bit of non-sensical scoring. He called it a “full throttle inspection/conquest of bourbon” but…it was clearly not much of either one. Not surprisingly, several other writers and people far more versed in bourbon than Parker picked up a sharp sword-like pen in response, notably Chuck Cowdery, Jason Pyle’s Sour Mash Manifesto, and Scotch & Ice Cream’s Tim Read. Driscoll also importantly mentions that he’s already seeing the uptick on sales because these reviews, so clearly this has struck a chord. There’s no question that Robert Parker is a knowledgeable and experienced, if not ubiquitous and perhaps over-exalted, personality when it comes to all things (or at least French things) fermented grape. Over the years he’s become, basically, the Oprah Winfrey of wine in terms of his influence and scoring. A previously undervalued, under-appreciated vineyard can find itself, nearly overnight, an international, money-making sensation after receiving a couple of his (in)famous high scores. He’s become such a constant, influential presence in the wine world that he’s of course received his fair share of backlash. There are well publicized reports of conflict-of-interest, criticisms of his allegiance to Bordeaux, head-shaking over his inflated scoring, and just plain fatigue of having one figure hold so much sway over the industry.

So his entry into the world of spirits, or as he calls it, liquor…a form of booze he admits he doesn’t care for, is a mildly interesting and mildly alarming one for the whisky world. On the one hand, he’s a well-liked, well-known figure, and the more people joining in appreciation of good bourbon the better, right? Sure, maybe. On the other hand (and the above-mentioned articles do a better job than I in pointing out these negatives), Parker wades in as if the world of Bourbon needed him to mention a few expressions. His list was an oddly assembled one, notably full of already hard-to-find, and pricey bourbons like Pappy Van Winkle and George T. Stagg. His popularity and influence will without a doubt cause these already rarefied whiskies to be even harder to find, much less afford. Prior to this, Van Winkle’s were already sliding into the dark, senseless pit of the collector, not the drinker, and Parker’s mere mention of them will cause even more people with more money than actual appreciation to seek bottles out. But, you know what, that’s fine, this kind fo crap happens every time something gets “mainstream” popular. It might be frustrating for those of us in the know, (wink, wink) but ultimately it’s what happens when the popularity, perceived value, and status of something soars. Perhaps us whisky people should start professing our love for old, rare Kool-Aid packets, and willfully drive up their caché and collectibility to deflect money in that direction so as to distract others and keep things status quo for the “real” whisky appreciators.

More disappointing, though, was Parker’s inaccuracy and rather cavalier approach to the whole thing. In a span of a few words, he called his exercise “full-throttle” and then “off-the-cuff”. Off-the-cuff is much nearer the mark. He asks questions that could’ve been answered with 10 seconds of research, mentions distilleries that don’t exist, and calls Rowen’s Creek “Rollin’s Creek”. He was apparently inspired by the TV show “Justified” which apparently often shows the characters nearly pickling themselves in Pappy. I can understand a TV show creating a healthy interest, I can barely watch Mad Men without a cocktail, however, after watching the show, I’m not about to begin writing about mid-century furniture. It was as if Parker chose (or had chosen for him) a selection of bourbons and then wrote about them after making almost no effort in researching his subject. Again, no one is obligated to research everything they drink, eat, watch, read, etc., but when you are an internationally recognized wine expert, with internationally wide exposure, you really owe it to everyone involved to be accurate in the information you put out for the masses.

The whole mess, if it can even be called a mess, also raises the interesting question of whether a single person, or personality, with such huge influence would be a positive or a negative for the whisky world. There are several people in the industry who occupy a top tier of expertise and popularity, and while a few have rather inflated opinions of themselves, none of them have the singular influence that Robert Parker does on the wine world. In general, I think that’s a very good thing.  I like that whisky’s exposure, in terms of the media, is relatively open and accepting of a great many opinions. I’d rather not see little tags next to empty slots on store shelves saying “the supreme overlord of whisky deems this one a 103 point hot buy!!!”. Who knows, perhaps this is the only time Parker writes about “liquor”…perhaps not. If he is going to continue, posting a write-up and series of reviews that reads like a non-experts unedited article for Forbes or the Wall Street Journal was probably not the best way to get started.

What do you think?

Posted in Opinion
Tags: , , , , ,

The Exclusive Malts 1992 Glen Grant 20 Year Old – Review

•May 7, 2013 • Leave a Comment

GLEN GRANT*Thanks to SF and the good folks at Impex Beverages for the sample.

Why I am fascinated with the tangled stories of ownership in the whisky world is beyond me. Partly, I suppose I like the notion that throughout such upheaval and change, many distilleries just kept right on mashing, worting, washing, and distilling away. Maybe I just find all that corporate hubris and jockeying humorous, mystifying, and a little sad. Maybe I just need to type it all in to a post to keep track of all the ridiculousness. Glen Grant is another one of those distilleries whose early history was a family affair (several generations of Grants), but whose later history is a familiar, though still mind-boggling, run-through of the biggest names in drinks business. In 1953, the J & J Grant Company was run by Douglas Mackessack, Major Grant’s grandson, but had joined forces with George & J. G. Smith Co., the owners of Glenlivet. This new company was called, cleverly enough, The Glenlivet & Glen Grant Distillers, Ltd. In 1972, that amalgamation joined with Hill Thompson & Co. and Longmorn-Glenlivet Ltd. to form the Glenlivet Distillers. By 1978, the mighty Seagram’s had bought the Glenlivet Distillers and added Glen Grant to its Chivas group. Everything remained fairly quiet then until 2000 when Seagram’s began imploding, and in 2001, Diageo and Pernod-Ricard pounced on the ailing behemoth of a company like a couple of lions taking down some  sad sack ungulate. The spoils of that conquest were divided up and Pernod Ricard ended up with Glen Grant (among others) in their portfolio. Finally, in 2006, The Campari Group, fittingly, purchased Glen Grant for a large boatload of money and the Campari Group is where Glen Grant remains today. Glen Grant is one of the best selling single malts in the world primarily because of its popularity in Italy, which is why it is fitting that they’re now owned by the large Italian drinks company. Glen Grant has a broad range of distillery bottlings available and this is not one of them. No, this is an independent single cask release from the Creative Whisky Company’s Exclusive Malts range, distilled in 1992, matured in an American oak re-fill bourbon barrel, and bottled 20 years later in 2012.

The Nose:  Light and sweetly malty. Malt syrup and milk chocolate are most prominent with apple cider rounding out the sweetness. Soft orange blossom honey, vanilla extract, and toasty grain play a lesser role along with soft woodspice notes of nutmeg and clove. Further back yet are tiny hints of fermented wash and sweet lime. Adding water adds more fruit, juicy apple, hard pear and plump orange, without taking too much away from that prominent malty-ness. The spice notes, however, softened somewhat.

The Palate:  The palate is unexpectedly quite different from the nose starting with an almost instant burst of sweet citrus and thin honey. The malt from the nose does return albeit with a bit of burnt sugar crème brûlée and baker’s chocolate. Another wave of juicy, sweet-sour citrus leads to some healthy, tannic woodspice notes of clove, nutmeg and ginger. Water serves to calm things down and round off some of the high ABV sharp edges. It’s still livelier than the nose, but water does help to integrate the two better. In 1952,

The Finish: Nicely spicy, yet a little hot with continued citrus puckering sweetness, and tannic clove.

Thoughts:  Interesting, though slightly more youthful seeming stuff. Straight, the nice but rather uneventful, grain-forward nose doesn’t give away much about the zippy, almost hyper-active palate to come, making the latter a bit of a surprise. While the two do not necessarily work that well together, they also do not necessarily not work well together if you get my meaning. I enjoyed it quite a bit more with water, the nose became a little more complex and worked better with the now becalmed palate. A fine aperitif whisky, while this one it has some very approachable “older” Speyside notes that are quite pleasant, it also has elements that feel “younger” than 20 years old to me.

The Exclusive Malts 1992 Glen Grant 20 Year Old, Speyside, IB-2012

55.7% ABV

Score:  84

Posted in Scotch, Speyside, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Arran Malt 10 Year Old +/- 2011 – Redux Review

•April 30, 2013 • Leave a Comment

Arran10yo_BottleTube

*Thanks to SF and the good folks at Impex Beverages for the sample.

With The Arran Malt’s 16 year old coming out soon in the U.S., I thought I’d take a look back at Arran’s entry-level 10 year old expression. I reviewed this a few years ago at a tasting party and while I got good notes then, a generous sample from U.S. importers Impex Beverages has given me a chance to really sit down with this one. Additionally, since Arran is such a young distillery, I thought it might be interesting to see how this one has changed now that a wider range of matured whiskies are available for the vatting. For their 10 year old expression uses a majority of malt that’s been matured in ex-bourbon American oak with some ex-sherry European Oak making up the rest. Also worth mentioning is the fact the Arran does not chill-filter, nor do they add any artificial coloring to this whisky, which definitely makes it a minority among similar younger, lower priced entries. Likewise, the 10 Year old has been bottled at 46% ABV, quite a bit higher than the usual 40% you see with such expressions.

The Nose:  Crisp fruits and honeyed malt lead the way: juicy green apples and hard Bartlett pears and soft honey whole-wheat bread. Powdered malt, almond bars, and vanilla bean along with a bit of orange zest and lemon panna cotta play a lesser role. Not a lot of wood notes on the nose, a little cut oak and muted baking spice and a whisper of brine.

The Palate:  Nice creamy/oily mouthfeel with more honey and malt kissed with more apples and citrus. Seems a little “hot”, alcohol-wise, not necessarily off-putting, but it does show its youth on the palate. Unsweetened chocolate and salted nuts lead to much more spice than I found on the nose. Earthy clove, ginger and white pepper grow quite drying and mouth-watering at the same time.

The Finish:  Continues to be a little “hot”, with more honey, apple, ginger and white pepper

Thoughts:  A nice, crisp, solid entry-level whisky, this second time around, I found both more complexity and more youth. There’s much to appreciate in the Arran 10, the inviting nose is full of honey, fruit, and malt, and the palate does carry some of that over, adding lively spice to the mix. Towards the end, however, its youthful rough edges are a bit more apparent, but that’s also part of its charm. In my first review, I mentioned this might be a perfect picnic whisky, I think I have to amend that by saying this would be a nice summer evening bottle shared with friends. It’s good on its own, and with a bit of water or over ice, some of the harshness is calmed without losing much of the complexity. Also, while it may pain some to use a $45 single malt in this fashion, I also found this to be an excellent Scotch to use in a Rob Roy. If you’re curious about whiskies from The Arran Malt, this is one is a good value and a good place to start.

The Arran Malt 10 Year Old, Island – Arran, OB +/- 2011

46% ABV

Score:  84

Posted in Island, Scotch, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Exclusive Malts 1994 Braeval 18 Year Old – Review

•April 26, 2013 • Leave a Comment

BRAEVAL

*Thanks to SF and the good folks at Impex Beverages for the sample.

There has never been an official bottling from the Braeval distillery, any expression you find out on the shelves is, like this one from The Exclusive Malts, an independently bottled release. Why? Well, as I’ve mentioned before, Braeval is a newish distillery, built in 1974 by its owners Chivas and Seagrams primarily to serve the needs of their popular blends. Apparently, there has just never been the availability or perhaps the need to put out a Braeval 12 Year old or something like that. Initially, the distillery was called The Braes of Glenlivet, meaning “the banks of the river Livet” or something close to that. In the early 90′s, in a stroke of dubious propriety, Chivas and its parent company Seagrams decided all the other brands using the term “Glenlivet” were a threat to their big-selling Glenlivet single malt and began to organize legal action to force name changes. In a stroke of common courtesy, they decided they better start by changing their own companies’ names before they insist on others changing theirs. So, in 1994, The Braes of Glenlivet became Braeval, which is just as well because to me, Breas of Glenlivet sounds like a golf course not a distillery.

Enough about golf courses. This 18 Year Old Braeval was distilled in 1994 and matured in a refill American oak barrel which yielded 228 bottles of cask strength, natural-color whisky-ness.

The Nose:  A quietly sweet (sweetly quiet?) nose, with vanilla egg custard, caramel and wild flower honey initially. Citrus notes of juicy tangerine, maybe a little pink grapefruit, are right there as well, with dessert-y notes of baked stone-fruit crumble and lemon curd tucked further back. Subtle wood notes belie the 18 years of maturation; polished oak, cocoa powder, and cinnamon & sugar mix. While the addition of water doesn’t unlock any more secrets, it does balance things a bit by toning down the sweetness and playing up the wood influence more.

The Palate:  That shy nose initially carries over to the palate, but it quickly becomes more expressive. Orange-tinged crème brûlée and toffee with roasted salted nuts lead the way. Dark chocolate covered cherries segue into the strong oak influence I was missing from the nose. Dusty tannic oak, vanilla bean, cinnamon stick and hot cinnamon candies, drying clove, and an earthy, almost minty catch towards the end. Like the nose, water serves to balance things out a bit by pulling out more malty-chocolatey richness and toning down the tannic spice just enough.

The Finish:  Quick-ish, oaky with more smooth, hot cinnamon and clove, quite drying and pleasant.

Thoughts:  I quite enjoyed this despite it at first seeming a little reluctant to being enjoyed. The nose seems a little restrained for its age and ABV, it takes a bit of work to prise out its complex sweetness. The palate is a bit more straight forward with the drying spice at the end almost a bit too much. Though I found this very drinkable at strength, water nicely balances out both the subtle nose and spicy palate, and draws out more of the rich 18 year old character I was expecting. A very good, interesting whisky, somewhat expected, yet a little mysterious at the same time. Recommended.

The Exclusive Malts 1994 Braeval 18 Year Old, Speyside, IB, 2012

52.1% ABV

Score:  85

Posted in Scotch, Speyside, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Hibiki 12 Year Old Japanese Blended Whiskey

•April 23, 2013 • Leave a Comment

suntory-hibiki-12-year-old-whisky

*Sincere thanks to DK & NR from Exposure PR for the sample, and to Suntory’s Neyah White for the sage advice.

Last month, March, Suntory celebrated the 90th anniversary of the Yamazaki Distillery and the House of Suntory Whisky. Shinjiro Torii founded his first distillery in March of 1923, establishing a whisky-making empire that would grow significantly over the years and is today one of the more highly regarded and consistently awarded in the world. The House of Suntory Whisky has taken a somewhat different path to its success, contrary to the all-too-common distillery tradition of changing owners often and eventually succumbing to multi-national conglomerate ownership. Indeed, it’s remained a family affair with Torii passing the torch to his son, Keizo Saji in 1961, and in 2002, Torii’s grandson, Shingo Torii becoming the Master Blender of the House.

Suntory_1While Shinjiro Torii (along with Masataka Taketsuru) is considered the “father of Japanese whisky”, a similar argument could be made for Keizo Saji being the “father of Japanese single malt whisky”. In many ways, he proved to be nearly as pioneering and influential as his father. He changed the company name from Kotobukiya to Suntory in 1963 and greatly expanded the company’s production capacity by completing the Hakushu distillery in 1973. Saji saw the potential in creating “premium” whiskies and it was he that created the Suntory_2Yamazaki line of single malts and laid the groundwork for the Hibiki range, of which this 12 year old is the only one widely available in the U.S. In the last several years, Yamazaki and Hibiki whiskies have gathered up so many awards, the company is probably going to have to build a warehouse just to house them all, proof enough that history has been kind to the House of Suntory Whisky and the three talented men who have led the way.

The Hibiki 12 Year Old is a distinctly Japanese blended whisky, created to accommodate Japan’s particular style of whisky drinking whichSuntory_3 often includes lots of ice and water (see below). The expression is made up of more than 20 components including single malt whiskies from the Yamazaki and Hakushu distilleries and grain whisky from the Chita distillery, ranging in age from 12 years to 30 years. These various whiskies are aged in a combination of American oak ex-bourbon barrels and European ex-sherry butts. The Hibiki 12 Year Old is the only Suntory whisky which finishes some of its malt in American oak barrels previously used to mature Umeshu, a traditional Japanese plum liqueur. Interestingly, these type of casks were originally used for efficiency’s sake, not for any additional flavoring the barrels might impart. The resulting influence was a welcome by-product, however, and now helps gives this whisky its distinctive flavor. Once all these 20+ components are vatted together, they are filtered through bamboo charcoal.

The Nose:  A quite fruity and lively nose full of orange marmalade and red berry jam laced with wonderfully floral honey. Behind those initial aromas are a nice balance of orgeat syrup, almond cookies, and cut cedar. Going even deeper, there are hints of warm chocolate sauce and that jammy quality gets a little tannic and winey, like a high-alcohol California Merlot. Dusty, mildly sherried, soft woodspice notes of vanilla, clove and cinnamon round things off nicely.

The Palate:  Smooth, silky mouthfeel, still fruity but now there’s more citrus, ripe orange and sweet Meyer lemon, with just a touch of that berry jam. Honey drenched malt, vanilla, and candied almonds leads to much more spice than the nose hinted at. Very subtle even at the beginning, sawdusty hints of fresh-cut cedar swirl throughout, helping to unify the early sweet tones and ending spice notes of clove, candied ginger, and white pepper.

The Finish:  Lingering and full of dry, winey spice and malty honey.

Thoughts:  A beautiful and meticulously well-crafted whiskey. If you’re a scotch drinker, there’s much about the Hibiki 12 that might seem familiar, but there’s quite a bit that will seem unique and beguiling. The honey and cedar notes run throughout the dram with other flavors joining in along the way to give this a wonderful balance and progression. The use of the plum casks is subtle but present, adding to that dark fruit quality, complimenting the tannic spice of the sherry casks and the citrus and vanilla of the bourbon casks. Though this was not necessarily a whisky created to drink neat, it is excellent stuff on its own, quite satisfying and complex and worth every penny of its near $50 price tag. I’ve heard people remark that it’s overpriced for a 12 year old blend, but I’m guessing those people have never tried this, nor do they understand what it’s about and how it was made. Highly Recommended.

***BONUS TASTING ROUND!***

Hibiki 12 Year Old in the Mizuwari style

One of the preferred ways of drinking fine whisky in Japan is Mizuwari, meaning “mixed with water”, which is essentially a highball glass filled with ice, sparkling (or sometimes still) water, and whisky. However, there’s much more to having a whisky mizuwari than just dumping all the ingredients into a glass and knocking it back, there is recipe and there is ritual as well. I thought it fitting to have some Hibiki in this style to honor Suntory Whisky’s 90th anniversary and a visit to Camper English’s Alcademics led me to this recipe as told by Suntory’s ambassador Neyah White. The recipe (and the ritual) is as follows:

  • Add ice to a highball glass. Stir with a bar spoon to chill the glass, then pour out any resulting water.
  • Add 1 to 1.5 fl. oz. whisky to the glass. Stir thirteen and one-half times clockwise.
  • Add 2 – 3 times as much sparkling (or still) water as whisky and stir three and one-half times clockwise.

Yes, you read correctly, you are to stir half stirs to prepare this properly…it’s simply part of the ritual. I can’t say for sure if stirring this 14 3/4 times counter-clockwise would make this drink taste like an old pork chop, my guess is it would not, by why risk it? There is a lot of water and a lot of ice in a tallboy like this. I was almost wondering if any whisky was going to make it through at all. It does, and more to the point, it’s a delicious way to enjoy the Hibiki 12, as much of the whisky’s character comes through. There’s floral honey, tannic red fruits, almost incense-like cedar, and slightly bitter clove and ginger, all lightly presented in this effervescent, mouth-watering way. That this whisky holds up so well with so much water and ice speaks to how well it has been crafted. I could drink a one-gallon pitcher of this and still need another round. I love the ritual of this Mizuwari, but if I ever get to Japan, I’m ordering two, because when I quickly get finished with the first one, they’ll only be about half done making the second.

Hibiki 12 Year Old Japanese Blended Whiskey

43% ABV

Score: 88

お誕生日おめでとうございます Suntory Whisky!

Posted in Blended, Japanese, Whisky Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers

%d bloggers like this: