Whisky Live

We visited John and Amanda last weekend and had the opportunity to attend Whisky Live 2012. Over the course of the evening, we tasted over two dozen whiskies from all over the globe, hardly scratching the surface of what was available for tasting that night. In total, there were over 150 whiskies being poured, but how much can one drink in an evening? Well, perhaps we could have done more, but all in all it was a great show. Here are the highlights, as best as I can remember.

Considering that we had previously tasted just about every scotch that was available that evening, I would have to say that the big surprise of the show, at least for me, were the American whiskies. Thanks to John, who had recently been on the bourbon trail in Louisville, I learned that Jefferson Presidential Select is actually the original Pappy Van Winkle from the now-defunct Stitzel-Weller distillery. I think it's an eighteen year old, which would mean it might be exactly the same whisky as the impossible to find Blue Smoke bourbon. Today Van Winkle is made at the Buffalo Trace distillery, but some of the old stock was apparently bought up and then bottled as Jefferson Presidential Reserve. I have no idea what it costs, but if you are a bourbon lover, I suggest you buy up as much as you can find. John reports that Buffalo Trace now uses the old Van Winkle recipe for the mash that ends up bottled as Weller. And I have to admit that the William Larue Weller, which I am tasting at this very moment, compares quite favorably to Winkle. According to John, their seven year old is a great buy, and the twelve  serves as an acceptable substitute for the now impossible-to-find Van Winkle 12.

But speaking of good buys, I thought that the best value of any whisky we tasted was Four Roses Yellow Label. It's around $20 a bottle -- a bargain for a really rich, round and full-flavored bourbon. We also sampled their Small Batch and Single Barrel, both of which were excellent, and although more than twenty dollars, still quite reasonably priced. On account of the fact that they were around the twentieth whiskies we tasted that night, I can no longer recall what the difference between them was -- only that we liked all the Four Roses offerings.

The other big surprise for us were the Hudson whiskies, which we tasted under the tutelage of Hudson's young master distiller. They make a variety of stuff, from an un-aged corn whisky, to a nice single malt. I'll try to post separately about the Hudsons some other time.

Other highlights were the Amrut whiskies, distilled in India, one of which (Fusion) was recently crowned whisky of the year by someone. And I'm pleased to say, it was pretty good, even if I wouldn't quite give it the best whisky oscar myself. We also drank a $300 Black Adder bottling of a 15 year old Glenfarclas. I don't quite get the Black Adder thing. This whisky was good; we liked its big flavor. It's cask strength, and apparently bottled right out of the cask, without filtering or any other homogenizing process. But $300? I don't think so. And speaking of high priced stuff, we had some Johnny Blue, just for the hell of it. I mean, why not? Once we had been admitted to Whisky Live, we had the chance to drink pretty much whatever we wanted, meaning that Johnny Blue was, for one evening at least, free. So who could turn down a taste of free Johnny Blue? Not us, that's for sure.

And the other crazy expensive beverage we tasted was Samuel Adams Utopias. This is a beer that is aged in whisky barrels for as much as 16 years. It's bottled at 27%, but the high alcohol content is just a distraction. The unique taste is what sets this beverage apart. I had never even heard of Utopia, but one time we were hanging around Federal in Boston, a guy came in and paid $180 for the last bottle they had in stock. "Holy cow!"I thought. Who would pay $180 for a bottle of beer? And so, when we had the chance to sample Utopias, we jumped at it. I wish I had taken notes, because I can't do it justice at this point. All I can recall is that it was the most interesting thing I tasted all night, and that it had a unique flavor - stronger and more intense than almost any whisky.  Sam Adams says it's like a great Madeira or Sherry, but I found its flavor to be stronger than either of those. It would probably overpower most foods, save perhaps a strong Italian cheese, or maybe a really smoky barbeque dish. It was bitter and sweet at the same time -- woody, earthy, full of strange spice notes. Not for the faint of heart, and maybe only good in small quantities. But one of the reasons to attend Whisky Live is the chance to sample beverages that one wouldn't otherwise taste. Like Utopias.

Lastly, there were cocktail bars set up, where some of Boston's best mixologists were pouring their latest concoctions. John's buddy Ted, who works at No. 9 Park, was making a cocktail with Ardbeg; now that's something you don't see every day. But my favorite of the cocktails was a drink that incorporated Byrrh, a quinine based aperitif. I liked the cocktail, but what I really liked was the Byrrh straight. We love vermouths, and the closest comparison I can find to Byrrh is Punt Y Mes, Carpano's sweet vermouth flavored with bitters. Another great discovery.

To sum up -- American whisky is really on the rise. It doesn't yet have the variety or the complexity of great scotch whisky, but it's come a long way from the days of 7 Crown.

Two-Hit Wonder?

It's still baseball season. For most of the AL, there is a pennant race underway. What with three divisions and two wild card slots, more than half of the teams in the AL are still in the mix. But not us here in the Nation. We're either rooting against the Yankees or just not paying attention. However, since there is nothing much to write about in terms of SU football, and because hoops season is still a couple months away, let's muse about baseball this afternoon.

So the question is -- did Theo really know what he was doing?  Or was he just lucky? On the plus side, he gets credit for trading Nomar away, and picking up Cabrera, Dave Roberts (the Curse would not have been reversed, at least not in 2004, without Roberts) and a couple other miscellaneous guys. No one expected it at the time, but Theo's move filled out the roster that would win eight straight that October.  Then he also gets credit for the Beckett and Lowell pick-up; and those two guys were instrumental in 2007. Does Theo get credit for hiring Tito? If so, that's three good moves.

On the other hand -- JD Drew, John Lackey, Carl Crawford, a whole rotation or two of ineffective starting pitchers, and an equal number of shortstops who seemed unable to hit the ball once they came to Fenway. So if all these moves had been made at random, or by a ten year old fan, would there have been any different ratio of good moves to bad ones? In other words, when Theo traded away Nomar, or when he picked up Mike Lowell, did he really know what he was doing? Or did he just look like a genius when those couple moves worked out for the Sox? I'm inclined to go with the lucky theory. We'll find out in a year or two by watching what happens in Chicago. His Cubs are not in the cellar, but their record is even worse than Boston's right now; so that means it's pretty bad.

The other thing is that I have to admit that Boston's front office has clearly been outperformed by the Yankees. It's easy to talk trash on the Yankees; they throw more money at their roster than any other team in the Major Leagues. But I think they get a more consistent return on their investment than other profligate front offices. Boston got very little for all the money they've lavished on free agents this past decade. Other teams (Philly comes to mind) have similarly had trouble with their expensive acquisitions. And even though the Yankees have won fewer titles than Boston over the past decade, they've put a more consistent team on the field, year after year. And that was true even before the meltdowns of the past two years.

So now it's up to Boston's front office -- what will they do with the two hundred and sixty million dollars, or bones or clams, or whatever you call them,  they just saved? Are they planning to hoard all that cash figuring that the fans will still fill Fenway regardless? Are they going back to the free agent market, where they've had so little success? Or will they use that money to lock up their own young players? Let's revisit that question next spring. And let's hope we can do that while we're still caring about wins and losses.

High West Double Rye

This evening I plan to post on something new -- something other than single malt scotch whisky. I mean, I wouldn't want anyone to think that all I thought about was scotch whisky. I have other interests in life besides scotch whisky. For example, rye whisky.

When I first knew about whisky, back in the late fifties and through the mid-sixties, the biggest selling whiskies, in fact the biggest selling spirits of any kind, were blended rye whiskies. Or more accurately, they could be described as grain whiskies, because I don't think they were made solely from rye. But anyway, Seagrams 7 Crown, Canadian Club, Seagrams VO (my dad's drink), outsold everything else on the market. And the predominant taste, or the grain that gave these blends their flavor, was rye.  Back in those days, when someone ordered a classic highball -- rye and ginger -- the bartender would typically pour a blend like 7 Crown. Remember the seven and seven? That was a giveaway that one was underage, but at the right establishments, who cared?

But even though blends were the top selling labels, it was very hard to find straight rye whisky. I recall Old Overholt; however, if my dad sold one bottle of Old Overholt every month, that was a lot. But now that spirits are back, and especially with the emergence of craft distilleries, American rye whisky is making a huge comeback. With good reason. We've posted in the past about Potrero; I've tried Wild Turkey's six year old rye, called Russell's Reserve I think (after master distiller Jimmy Russell); Van Winkle makes perhaps the finest rye, but good luck finding a bottle of that anywhere;  and Sazerac has been the local rye for all manner of cocktails; but at this year's Whisky Lovers Ball I was introduced to High West Double Rye, which is bottled in Park City Utah of all places. Now I don't know whether Utah has overcome its hostility toward alcoholic beverages, but the last time we visited Utah, one could not order a drink without also ordering food. In fact, one could not walk into a bar without a prior membership. And as I recall, when one ordered spirits, they were served as miniatures, not poured from a bottle. Now that, of course, would limit one's choice of beverages. Do you think Highland Park sells little 50 ml. bottles of their 15 and 18?

In any event, here it is 2012, and I guess there is a distillery right smack in Park City.  Our friends Stacy and Martine were traveling out west, spent some time in Park City, and were kind enough to bring back a bottle of this excellent rye whisky. 46% - not chill filtered. Even though High West has a distillery in Park City, this rye is apparently distilled elsewhere. And the label says it's a blend of two ryes - one young and made mainly (95%) from rye, with just a touch of barley; and the other whisky 16 years old and made from rye and corn. So the young rye gives High West its spicy character, and the older spirit smooths out the bite of the younger whisky and also adds some sweetness, I'm guessing from the corn. This is really a terrific whisky, full of contrasts. It has a bite, but is smooth and mellow at the same time. It's spicy, with a touch of sweetness, but is dry and crisp at the same time. I'll bet it makes a great old fashioned, or would be a terrific backbone to the Rock and Rye I've been making. However, it's so good when drunk neat that I can't quite bring myself to mix it with anything. Remember in The Big Sleep, when Lauren Bacall's father offers Bogart a brandy, and asks him how he takes it? Bogart replies, "In a glass." That's the best way to drink this High West Double Rye, I think. In a glass.

Highland Park 21

Highland Park, or HP as its known to those of us who are in the know, is perhaps everyone's all-around favorite whisky. From the 12 on up, it's hard to argue against HP. For a while, before it was discovered by the world-wide scotch market, HP 18 was by far and away the absolute best buy for a premium whisky. Unfortunately, the secret is out, and a bottle of 18 will now set one back about a hundred dollars, or bones, or clams, or whatever you call them. Even at that price, the 18 is still a great malt. And as for the 25 and the 30 (which I've only tasted a couple times, but which can be found in a particular apartment overlooking Biscayne Bay), forget about it!

This year, I obtained a bottle of HP 21 for the annual Whisky Lovers Ball. It came to me courtesy of singlemaltsdirect.com, whom I am happy to plug here at MannyMontaigne for no reason other than the fact that they sell awesome malts for reasonable prices, and have the most obliging and helpful staff one can imagine. It was difficult to keep the 21 closed up in the liquor cabinet for a few months as we awaited the Ball, but I hid it away, out of sight, and managed not to succumb to temptation in the meantime. So anyway, here are the notes on Highland Park 21.

HP 21 - 47.5%. I'm no good at discerning all the flavors in the nose, and really, for a rich malty scotch, who cares. So forget about the nose. The first impression, the first distinctive impression, is a luxurious mouthfeel as soon at the malt hits the tongue. I'm big on the texture of whisky, and this malt has a soft buttery feel to it. Then the flavor, clearly Highland Park, which combines the full flavor of a rich highland malt with a touch of peat from the Islands. In ways, I think that combination goes a long way toward explaining why HP is the perfect all around scotch. But then, what sets this malt apart from its younger brethren is the richness of its flavor -- it's deeper, or bigger, or however you care to explain it, than the 15 or the 18. And the extra few years in the barrel have taken all the roughness out of its edges. I mean, smooth. Like velvet, like glass, like a baby's bottom. Lastly, there is that long long finish. That's what one pays for in whiskies older than 18 years. It's all about the finish, and how you can taste the whisky for five minutes after you've swallowed it. Holy cow!! I think I need to go downstairs and pour another dram. I mean, just to check it out again, and make sure the notes are accurate. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Not surprisingly, HP 21 was one of the stars of the Whisky Lovers Ball. I had a number of good malts, really good malts, in the after-dinner selection. But most everyone went for the HP, with good reason. And that reminds me -- I think I need to head back to Miami.

Let's Try Again

This blog originated in the fall of 2005, as a means for the boys and me to exchange thoughts about Michel de Montaigne. Both boys were planning to read Montaigne; Mike was living in Israel, which made it difficult to speak by phone (that was before the time of Skype and iChat and all that); and so we envisioned the blog as a forum for posting our thoughts, insights, questions, whatever. In all, there were probably three postings about Montaigne. But fortunately, John proposed that we also post about RedSox baseball, and single malt scotch whisky. And of course, it's been the latter two topics that have kept the blog alive and well for almost seven years. That and the fact that after a week or two, I no longer cared what the blog's original limitations were; I quickly decided that I could post about any old thing that interested me. So over time, Manny de Montaigne has seen its share of Syracuse basketball; it's played host to my epic letters to the SU athletic department; I've written about Dylan concerts and Pharoah Sanders; and for a period of time, posted extensively about Genesis.

So why bring up the original purpose of the blog; why mention Montaigne at all? Who really cares about that? I mention Montaigne because he was really the first introspective writer, the first author to look within, and to write about the process of self-reflection. Today, of course, that's about all writers do; even when I read Time magazine, I have to endure more self-absorption than discussion of whatever might be going on in the world all around us. And I don't know about you, but I could hardly care what anyone who writes for Time magazine, or any other news outlet for that matter, thinks about anything. Just tell me what happened, you know? But I'm digressing. The question here is why did I stop writing after almost seven years?

So the first thing to consider is that 2012 has been pretty much of a sports disaster. First, Fab Melo decided in early March to declare for the NBA draft, even before the regular season ended; and for the second time in only three years, Cuse entered the tournament with a number one seed, but no real chance of winning the thing. Last time it happened, we could hardly blame AO for blowing out his knee in the Big East tournament. But this time, Fab Melo's truancy left a bad taste in the mouth. Next came the disastrous start to another baseball season, and the realization that there was no way in hell the Sox were going anywhere. (Of course, even then I never expected that they would be plunging to the basement of the AL East, and perhaps challenging for the worst record in all of baseball. Then the Celtics ran out of gas, which shouldn't have surprised anyone, given their age. Still, it was a disappointment after they gave the Heat a run for its money.

So what, you say. But the point is that, no matter what else is going on in the world, there is usually something good happening on the sports page, something that one wants to write about. Not this year. This year, I look away as I turn to the sports section, afraid of what I might see. Such as Oakland 20, Boston 2. That would be bad enough if it was a football score. Then let's add the complication that I was working my butt off from the beginning of April through August. I know that's just an excuse, but being that busy, at the same time I was dispirited about all my favorite topics (aside from whisky), made it very hard to sit down and write anything.

So I have a million and one things to post about, none of which have been forgotten. Such as:
1) Another new Rosebank. It's not really new; there is no new Rosebank. It's actually 21 years old, but newly opened, and definitely worth the wait.
2) The Whisky Lovers Ball, 2012.
3) The A-Gon trade. What does ownership plan to do with the $260 million they have saved?
4) HP 21 -- opened at the Whisky Lovers Ball.
5) High West rye whisky. Distilled in Park City, Utah.  That fact alone is worth a posting, because Utah used to have the weirdest alcohol laws of any place on the planet. Why anyone would choose to make whisky there is a bit of a surprise.
6) The NBA draft. The Green go for the Orange.

And so on. Who knows, maybe the pennant races, or the post-season will give me something to cheer about? If not, there ought to be enough whisky news to keep me busy until November, when another  Hoops season starts in the Cuse. And for now at least, the University has not yet managed to kill that program. So the plan is to resume posting. And not to care if I really have much of anything to post about. Even if there's nothing worthy of a posting, I can always share my feelings with my readers. I know how much all of you look forward to that.