Probably Speyside's Finest Distillery XOP 1986 [Road to #1000, Review #977]

Hi everyone,

Here we have something of a mystery… ‘Probably Speyside’s Finest Distillery’ is a bottling that the Laings have been doing for a while, having various different versions and barrels that they have bottled.

I like the addition of ‘Probably.’ It makes the whole thing sound quite playful.

Anyway, if we look at distilleries that this could be from we have Glenfarclas or Macallan, both of which won’t want their brand names used. From these, I think its probably Glenfarclas but who knows…

If you buy barrels, you might realise that Glenfarclas barrels seem to float around quite a bit but most of them are Bourbon or Hogsheads. But you aren’t allowed to use the name so people use names like Blairfindy or just classify it by the region but make it sound fancy. Cadenhead’s are the only ones who are allowed to use the Glenfarclas name but are only allowed to release two barrels a year.

I tried this a first time, the again the next day so have a set of both notes:

Probably Speyside's Finest Distillery XOP 1986 46.4%

Colour: Gold

Body: Medium/Full

Nose: Woody and grassy, a little closed, malty, maybe a tad flat, cocoa powder.

Retry: Much better, fresher, more sherry and raisin, more grassy too, dried grass.

Taste: Soft arrival, woody, flat oak then chocolate and malt, some nice orange then grippy tannins.

Retry: Soft and sweet arrival, raisin, orange and sherry, then drier with oak and dried grass then more sweetness again, orange and red apple.

Finish: Long length. Great finish, lots of orange and red apple.

Retry: Long length. Fairly plain here now, oak, some ginger.

From a Butt, released in 2017 at 30yo. Tried the first day and thought I hadn't given it a fair chance. Probably Glenfarclas and not exactly the best cask of the stuff. The second day was an improvement but there's still a lot of fairly plain oak and dryness that is dragging it down.

72/100

Thanks for reading!

Scotch Review #820

Whisky Network Review #977

Network Average: 75.1

Best Score: 94

Worst Score: 12

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as the Global Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and I am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and I am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Secret Distillery #1 28yo TBWC Review

Hi everyone,

sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Always good to see whisky that definitely isn’t Glenfarclas being released by the indies that wouldn’t be allowed to call it Glenfarlcas even if this was Glenfarclas, which, to be clear, it definitely is not…

 

Secret Distillery #1 28 TBWC 50%

Colour: Dark Amber

Body: Full

Nose: Complex orange, Seville, peel and perfumed. Complex spices and great oak, antique leather and old furniture and furniture polish. Develops delicious strawberry and liquorice and black pepper combo. Over time there's more dried cherry and dark chocolate.

Taste: Sweet and rich, orange and chocolate and lots of dry oak, Old Balvenie territory, leather and antique furniture and polish for said furniture. Perfect really. Cherry dark chocolate. Quite dry. Gorgeous development.

Finish: Long length. Emotional, sweeter here, epic, maple syrup, so bloody good.

Clap clap clap clap

One of those definite buys for me, but sadly the budget did not allow. About £150 for the 50cl bottle. Its all gone now anyway. Not often I find something this good from new releases that aren’t extortionately priced. Now, if the distillery name was the on the bottle maybe it would have been more expensive.

90/100

Thanks for reading!

Scotch Reviews #696

Whisky Network Review #832

Network Average: 75.1

Best Score: 94

Worst Score: 12

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and I am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and I am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Let's Talk Direct Fired Stills [Discussion]

Hello again everyone,

Today I’ve got another vaguely interesting discussion post on direct fired stills. What are they? Why should I care? Does it make better whisky? All these questions and more will be answered!

First though, a lot more information can be found at the whisky science blog. This guy is much more professional than me (he uses references) and essentially, I’m just updating his list.

Much like maltings, having been onsite for many distilleries 100 years ago, direct fired stills would have been the norm. Back then they would have used a coal fire underneath the still as a heat source so that the alcoholic vapours would evaporate and could be collected.

Steam heated stills were introduced as early as 1887 to Glenmorangie, but many distilleries used direct fired stills until the 1950’s and 60’s when much of the industry was modernising (including the maltings).

A few distilleries stubbornly clung on though, and there is at least one distillery left that still direct fires all of its stills.

So, let’s talk a little about direct fired stills. What are they? Do they give a different flavour? If so, why?

 

To understand that, maybe it is useful to understand the other approach; steam.

The steam is generated in a steam boiler by natural gas or oil. The most common use of steam is the steam coil, where a coil of steel tubing inside the still is submerged in wash when the still is filled. The steam coil is pumped with hot steam to heat the wash and the rate of steam pumped through can be increased or decreased to change the temperature. The steam condenses in the pipes and returns to the boiler.

The other method is using steam cylinders or jackets, although these have now been outdated by the more modern steam coils. Whisky.com has some pictures of Linkwood and Glenlossie but I believe both these distilleries have been updated with new steam coils since these photos.

Quote from whisky.com on steam cylinders:

“Several of these hollow cylinders are placed inside the pot, standing upright. That way the wash can enter from below and leave heated at the top. The cylinders are double-walled so the hot steam enters the walls from above and runs down as condensed water. Small baffles between the thin walls of the cylinders lead the steam into a homogeneous flow in order to guarantee a constant heat emission. The steam is channelled through pipes at the top of the cylinders. Ring pipes collect the condensed water.”

I don’t believe there would be any difference in flavour between these three steam heating methods, other than efficiency and energy use perhaps.

Steam replaced direct fired stills for a number of reasons. Better heating efficiency, more control of heating, more even heating of the charge, optimising charge quantity and better heat transfer.

‘Direct Firing’ on the other hand is very different. It involves a direct flame to heat the still. Originally, all distilleries would have used coal or even peat to heat the stills. Nowadays, the EU have put regulations in place so that distilleries can no longer use coal but some still use natural gas or oil.

Because there are quite a few solids left over from the fermentation of the wash, these can burn to the bottom of the still and bring a ‘burnt’ or sulphury flavour through into the low wines. To stop this burning, direct fired stills will have a ‘rummager’ installed, which is a spinning contraption with sheets of copper chains to agitate the wash while it is distilling.

Also, the copper has to be much thicker on the bottom of direct fired stills. Partly because the rummager is going to scrape off some of the copper and partly to withstand the intense heating of the direct flame. The shape of the bottom of the still is also different, with direct fired stills the bottom of the still is concave to spread the heat of the fire more evenly. With steam heated stills it is the opposite, a convex shape giving more room for the bulky coils.

Glenfarclas is the only distillery
to direct fire all their stills

Similarly, the heat from direct firing is different to heating with steam, in that the heating with steam is very even and controllable. Whereas direct firing is uneven in its heating and less easily controlled. This might mean that over-frothing of wash stills is more common (called entrainment), burning of solids in the wash still even with a rummager and too fast or slow distillation of the spirit. It would be much easier to overcompensate with the heating (particularly with coal), turning the heat up, have it be too hot and turn it right down again to try and control it, see-sawing from one extreme to the other.

So, it’s uneven, harder to control and not as energy efficient. Why then do some distilleries stick by their direct fired stills?

Well, they’ve got some advantages too. For one, I would say (couldn’t find a reference but I’m sure others have said this too) that direct firing of stills is going to give you a more traditional tasting whisky. More substantial, more character and more flavour. Maybe not all good flavours, but those will mature with a long interaction with oxygen and wood (often good Sherry casks work best) to give you a better long aging whisky, à la old Macallan or any Glenfarclas, old Springbank, pre-closure Ardbeg, Karuizawa or pre-2005 Glendronach.

These whiskies tend to be able to age almost indefinitely, keeping their spirit character without being overwhelmed by oak, Sherry or oxygen.

Macallan stopped using their last direct fired still in 2010

Perhaps this is partly because of the partial cooking/burning of solids in a direct fired still, then removed by the rummager. This would allow any cooked or burnt flavour chemicals created to distill off into the spirit. The chemical associated with this phenomenon is Furfural, giving you a nutty or burnt flavour to the spirit. What this Furfural does during maturation is anyone’s guess…

(Of course, there are a tonne of other factors that go into the character of the whiskies I mentioned and direct fired stills is only one aspect.)

People say that ‘back in the good old days’ and ‘they don’t make whisky like this anymore.’ Well, it’s true, a lot has changed (more on that to come) but when did the direct firing of stills change?

Some very recently, Glendronach and Ardmore in particular changed recently and have had a hard time replicating their pre-steam stuff. Ardmore, I read, took months to change the cut points to a point where it was similar to the direct fired spirit.

Glenfarclas still direct fires all its stills, although other things have changed there in the meantime (Switching from wooden washbacks, and ummm no longer putting soap in the fermentations to stop the froth… Back in the 1980’s mind you). Glenfiddich and Macallan are the other distilleries well known for having direct fired stills, urrrrrr still.

Still House No. 2 at Glenfiddich

However, after some digging it may seem that Glenfiddich do not direct fire all their stills anymore (Source here says that only still house no. 2 uses direct fired stills. Which would be 13 stills out of 32. I think…), while Macallan may have stopped a while ago. I emailed both distilleries to clarify but only heard back from Macallan. I had seen sources say that Macallan stopped direct firing in 2002 and another said 2010. Both are correct in a way, Macallan started converting their stills to steam in the early 2000’s and finally finished in 2010. Their new distillery, which will be starting this year, will also use steam.

Other distilleries only direct fire their wash stills, for instance Springbank, Tobermory and Glen Garioch. This might be because any cooking/burning of solids could only occur in the wash still, as there are no solids in the low wines going into the spirit still. Therefore, the most difference to the final flavour of the spirit may come from the direct firing of the wash still.

Anyway, below is a small list of distilleries and when they stopped using direct fired stills. Of particular interest to me was Glen Grant and Glenlivet as older versions from this time and before are pretty available (although not cheap). Strathisla and Longmorn are two others that tend to fly under the radar, and stuff from their direct fired stocks are available.

Direct Fired-

Glenfarclas (All stills)

Glenfiddich (13 stills of 32)

Springbank (Wash still only)

Tobermory (Wash still only)

Glen Garioch (Wash still only) (1995 spirit still)

Macallan (2010)

Glendronach (2005)

Ardmore (2001)

Longmorn (1994)

Strathisla (1992)

Ardbeg (1989 wash, 2001 spirit)

Glen Grant (1986)

Glenlivet (1986)

Caol Ila (1974)

Thanks for reading!

Let me know what you think! Does direct firing of stills make a difference? Do you like the flavours from direct fired whisky? Do you drink nothing but the finest Golden Promise, pre-war, direct fired Macallan? Do you give a shit? Let me know!

[Scotland Stag] A Glenfar-class of it's own: Five Decades Tour

Hi everybody!

You may not know but I’m getting married uncomfortably soon, and that means that a stag do was in order. But where do you go as a lonely whisky nerd? You go to Scotland of course, and you do and load of tours, taste some epic whisky and come up with whisky puns with your best man- Tom James.

I’m going to split these posts into a few parts because I don’t want you getting too bored, so in order we did:

• Glenfarclas Five Decades Tasting & Tour
• The Mash Tun & Aberlour Hotel
• Glenfiddich Tour
• Glendronach Tour
• Craigellachie Hotel (Night 1)
• Aberlour Tour
• Gordon & MacPhail Shop
• Craigellachie Hotel (Night 2)
• Tomatin Single Cask Experience Tour

So, first thing is first. We flew up to Inverness and drove straight to Glenfarclas for the Five Decades tasting. A legendary tour, where you get to taste a whisky from each of the last five decades!

Tom, best man, wingman and chauffeur, was driving but had optimistically bought one hundred sample bottles to be able to take samples away.

The tour started with some of the history of the distillery, including an intro to the Grant family that have owned the distillery the entire time it has been running, the only distillery to be able to boast this particular fact. Also that they’re pretty much all named George. Also the only family owners to be involved day to day with the running and operation of the distillery. Also they’ve got the biggest mash tun of any distillery in Scotland. So many interesting facts to tuck away for whisky quiz night (I wish that was a thing).

Of course, Glenfarclas being a pretty traditional whisky and a very relaxed/no marketing BS type of tour it was pretty epic. Interestingly too, they had wooden washbacks at one point, but installed one steel one to see if there was a difference in taste to the spirit. They determined there wasn’t, so replaced all the wood.

The stills are all still direct fired and it is still one of the only places to still continue doing this. Still.

I think Glenfiddich is the only other.

We were then led away to the warehouses to have a look at some of the maturing casks. The contrast in temperature was huge. The weather was so hot outside (28 degrees), but in the dunnage it was like a fridge. Glenfarclas is always matured in Sherry casks, but they have so much warehousing space there that they rent the space out to other distilleries too.

After all that we got to the tasting, in a lovely room converted from an old ship. Five whiskies awaited us.

All of them are from the Family Casks range, all at cask strength, all single casks, selected for being some of the best Glenfarclas you can get your hands on. Each year now, new casks are selected by a panel of the public (think it was 15 people, probably selected by some sort of divine power).

It was a pretty stagg-ering line up (If you think that one’s bad, wait for others!), that left me Ard-begging for Dal-more…

• 2002 Unreleased 2017 Family Cask
• 1998 Autumn 2016 Family Cask
• 1985 Summer 2016 Family Cask
• 1978 Winter 2015 Family Cask
• 1966 Spring 2015 Family Cask

Glenfarclas 2002 Unreleased 2017 Family Casks 60% Approx.

Colour: Amber

Body: Full

Nose: Ethereal and fresh, modern Sherry, fruity and malty, red apple, A’Bunadh-esque. A little sharp from the ABV.

Taste: Wah! A big and juicy beast, date, fig, very rich and fruity, some malt too. Some chocolate, soft oak, velvety tannins. Long, drawn out development, but quite ethereal.

Finish: Long length. Rich, but ethereal and balanced.

Barrelled at 67.8%, cask 3770 a 1st Fill Sherry Butt. Spicier with water, ginger and chili chocolate.

83/100

Glenfarclas 1998 Autumn 2016 Family Casks 59.2%

Colour: Light Gold

Body: Medium/Full

Nose: Completely different. Peach yogurt, apricot yogurt, white chocolate raisins, yogurt coated raisins. Really fresh and slightly floral.

Taste: Sweet and sour arrival, oak then this apricot and peach yogurt thing, lovely fresh fruit, then malty and spicy with some white chocolate coated raisins.

Finish: Long length. More peach yogurt again with white chocolate.

Label says it’s from a 1st Fill Sherry Butt but no one believed it, maybe one that had been left to dry before being used? Better without water, spicier and drier with.

80/100

Glenfarclas 1985 Summer 2016 Family Casks 44.2%

Colour: Amber

Body: Medium/Full

Nose: Quite chemical in a really interesting and wonderful way. Chlorine, swimming pool, floral, perfume, slight meaty note like glazed ham?, complex mint with peppermint and spearmint. Soapy and a bit funky but pulls it off with amazing style.

Taste: Much softer than the other two. Sherry, rich raisin, oily and mouth coating. Really long, paced development with amazing oak and juicy dried fruit. Complex mint with peppermint, slightly floral too with some good soap.

Finish: Long length. Toffee, chocolate and juicy tannins. An incredible finish that just keeps giving.

From a refill Sherry Hogshead. Some really unique notes here and it really unfurls. This triggers something in me, something emotional. Beautiful whisky.

90/100

Glenfarclas 1978 Winter 2015 Family Casks 48.8%

Colour: Light Amber

Body: Medium/Full

Nose: Lighter, but interestingly soapy and minty again, cleaner though with less fruit and more obvious age about it. White chocolate raisin, swimming pool, dunnage and lovely musky-ness.

Taste: Spicy arrival, ginger, lots of clove, floral and clean, lots of oaky layers, old old oak, musky, old worn leather. Loooooooooong. Oily and malty too.

Finish: Long length. Subtle and stylish. White chocolate raisins and lovely subtle oak. Great musk keeps going.

From a 4th Fill Hogshead. The musky notes are lovely on this, definitely tastes older than the others. Requires time to open up though.

88/100

Glenfarclas 1966 Spring 2015 Family Casks 50.6%

Colour: Amber

Body: Medium

Nose: Dry. Old spice box, one that’s held a load of spices before but right at this moment there’s clove in it. Sharp oak, but in no way a bad thing here. Really complex, nutmeg, black pepper, that swimming pool chlorine thing is back and the best pine car air freshener that money can buy.

Taste: Spicy, then recedes and then the sweetness comes in. What is incredible is the fresh lime rind balancing the amazing raisin from the Sherry, floral, perfume, old cologne then a little woody.

Finish: Long length. Amazing entry into the finish, fresh still with lovely lime and malty oak, slightly sour.

From a Sherry Butt. Very rich but not as complex as the 1985. The second oldest whisky I’ve ever had.

87/100

What a fantastic tasting, with no pressure to hurry up and leave, which gave us the necessary time to really appreciate these amazing whiskies. Also great was the willingness to pour a little more of your favourite, be it the 1966 or 2002.

Overall, an amazing tour and experience, which I would thoroughly recommend to anyone. A great start to the stag!

Thanks for reading!

Scotch Reviews #371-#375

Whisky Network Reviews #417-#421

Network Average: 74.5

Best Score: 92

Worst Score: 44

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. You can find more on my scoring here. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.

Why is this here?

Glenfarclas 105 (10 Year Old) Review

Hi everyone,

A big Sherried beast today. Glenfarlcas 105. Glenfarclas, of course, is the traditional, direct firing, Sherry cask maturing, independent distillery, thinking about the long term. Great age statement range, with the older stuff at reasonable prices still.

I wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan of Glenfarclas, as I tend to prefer Glendronach but I’ve tasted quite a few now and they’ve definitely got a different style.

I’m visiting the distillery later in May and doing the Generations tasting, which will be epic. Really looking forward to it.

Oh, this is the high strength/cask strength version that has appeared as an NAS and with an age statement of 10 years. This one was one of the latter.

Glenfarclas 105 10 year old 60%

Colour: Dark Amber

Body: Full

Nose: Sweet sherry and sharp alcohol, raisin, date, sweet syrup and thick honey, a little clove.

Water: Still quite sharp. More clove with dark and milk chocolate coming out. Christmas cake with spice. A 'green' oaky note.

Taste: Sharp, assertive, very sweet, loads of sherry and brown sugar, alcohol taking over, then receding with drying sweetness and lots of oaky spice.

Water: More soft and a little creamy, still quite strong spicy clove and oak.

Finish: Long length. Sweet brown sugar and sherry.

Water: Rough oak spice.

Wahh! What a beast. Unbalanced but an honest, straightforward dram. Sherry and spirit influence a little inseperable. I think I prefer Aberlour A’Bunadh in the end as something a little less harsh.

69/100

Thanks for reading!

Review #337

Network Average: 74.5

Best Score: 92

Worst Score: 44

0-49 Terrible

50-59 Bad

60-64 Just About OK

65-69 Ok to Good

70-74 Good

75-79 Very Good

80-84 Excellent

85-89 Superb

90+ Magnificent

Full Disclosure Disclaimer: I currently work as a Brand Ambassador for Penderyn Distillery. The views expressed here are purely my own and do not reflect the views of Penderyn Distillery or The Welsh Whisky Company. I try to maintain as much objectivity as I can but feel free to take my reviews with as big a pinch of salt as you like. Furthermore, I have never accepted free samples from anyone in the whisky industry, but have bought bottles or samples with my money, bringing a different set of biases. Also, my rating scale is NOT based on a Parker type wine scoring scale or a school/college/university % or A-F grade score. I apologise for any seemly low or 'bad' scores given with my system and am sorry I can't say only nice things. Please keep in mind that I am ethically compromised and am unable to produce 100% unbiased reviews.