What's The Buzz?
This page will be used for any news, views, and gossip – a magaziney smorgasbord which will also include guest writers and where possible whisky reviews.
In this first issue I’ve reproduced an unpublished article on the vatted malt whisky issue as well a round up of some of the best whiskies I’ve tasted this year so far.
Distil
Distilled spirits were given their own show this year when Distill was held at the same time as the International Wine Fair but in an adjacent hall at Excel in London.
The general view was that the event was not as bad as some had feared but not as good as it could be. Among the big exhibitors were Diageo and Whyte & Mackay, and Irish whiskey was well represented by Cooley and The Hot Irishman, which is a new name to me but one which will be pursued for future postings.
Among the exhibitors was Sukhinder Singh of The Whisky Exchange, who was showing off a fine range of rare cognacs, armagnacs and rums. He is about to launch a new independent range of malts under the name Elements of Islay. There are three bottlings in the first batch, from Ardbeg, Laphroaig and Caol Ila. They are bottled in stylish Mackmyra-like bottles and each bears a symbol similar to a chemical element – Ar1, Lp1 and Cl1, with the one indicating it is from the first batch. I’m hoping to bring tasting notes for the July magazine.
Rumours
With malt whisky heavily in demand at the moment the scramble for distilleries goes on unabated. Latest to enter the fray would seem to be Glendronach, which Pernod has apparently decided to off-load and which may be sold as early as this week.
Apparently the price is high (unsurprisingly) and among the names that have been put in the frame to buy it include the Laing brothers (though this would seem unlikely somehow) and Signatory’s Andrew Symington. The favourites, though, would seem to be the consortium headed by Billy Walker, owners of Benriach.
There are those who are adamant that Bruichladdich will be sold this year. Pernod Ricard has been mentioned as a potential purchaser, and another rumour has Whyte & Mackay showing an interest.
Blended malts
My opposition to the term ‘blended malt whisky’ as a descriptor for a mix of malts is well recorded. But the main thrust of my opposition is that I don’t think anyone outside the major distillers and the Scotch Whisky Association like it either. The general public are completely oblivious to it, and whisky enthusiasts, journalists, retailers and many respected whisky producers reject it.
It makes me angry that anyone should claim a mandate for introducing the term on the back of support that would make Mugabe blush.
Unfortunately those opposed to the terminology were disorganised in their opposition and there was no concerted or structured campaign against the introduction of the term ‘blended malt’ so it was steam-rollered through.
I was asked to write a balanced news story for Whisky Magazine but it was not used. The complete text is below.
Storm of protest over new proposals
New proposals aimed at ending confusion over the definitions of Scotch whisky styles have been greeted with a storm of protest, plunging the whisky industry in to its biggest dispute since the Cardhu row erupted five years ago.
Independent distilling and bottling companies, respected whisky writers and hundreds of dedicated enthusiasts have formed a ‘cartel of opposition’ to the new proposals, which have been drawn up by the Scotch Whisky Association and are set to be put forward to the Government to be enshrined in law.
And opponents of the new definitions claim they are doing the very things they were supposed to prevent – cause confusion among whisky drinkers and potentially leave the door open to another ‘Cardhu style’ product launch.
The review of whisky definitions followed a move five years ago by Diageo to mix Cardhu single malt with other malts and market the mix as Cardhu Pure Malt. The company was forced to withdraw the product but it was felt that terms such as ‘pure’ were misleading and that using the name of a distillery on a product containing malt from several distilleries was wrong.
The SWA also proposed that a new term be used for a mixture of malts from different distilleries – blended malt Scotch whisky. Despite vigorous opposition, the SWA claimed that ‘consumer research’ supported the new terminology.
Now the final proposals have been published and many sectors of the whisky world are up in arms at them. The protestors claim that:
• The term blended malt Scotch whisky is confusing to consumers because it brackets a malts-only whisky with one containing malts and other grains
• That the SWA is misleading people when it claims it has done extensive market research and no such consensus in favour of the term exists
• That there are loopholes in the proposals that could lead to more Cardhu-style launches, further blurring the boundaries between categories
At the heart of the debate is the belief among many that the Scotch Whisky Association decided on the new terminology without the full consultation of other views as it claims. Opponents argue that the SWA has imposed the term on the consumer because its trade members want it, and not because it is what the public want. And they are suspicious of the motivation for such a move. A petition at ipetition.com had attracted more than 500 signatures in just a few days at the time of going to press.
Mark Reynier of Bruichladdich described the new proposals as a ‘charter for cheats and marketers.’
“The irreconcilable pressure of finite whisky stocks and marketing muscle has frustrated large distillers’ to grow brands so they want to fiddle the rules,” he says.
“I have asked them to show what a fool I am by getting it wrong and nobody has done so. I’d be delighted if they did because then I would not feel that this was a complete set up.”
Compass Box’s John Glaser wrote to SWA chief executive Gavin Hewitt to offer help organize proper consumer research after he was told that no proper consumer research had been done. The offer was declined.
“SWA people have been suggesting to the press that consumer research was done on blended malt Scotch whisky but I would challenge this,” he said. “I am aware that industry research was done years ago about the issues of consumer confusion and the commonly used terms. But as of March 2006, well after the consultation was over, there had been no research on ‘blended malt’ as a term. A senior executive of the SWA told me so.”
An SWA spokesman in a lengthy reply refuted suggestions that there had not been wide public consultation on the issue, and said there was ‘very strong support’ for the package of proposals. Because it was gathered from so many different sources, he said, it was ‘not in composite form’ and couldn’t be produced. But he argued that the petition and industry protests represented a minority view.
“We believe such views to be unrepresentative of the wider industry and consumers worldwide,” he said. “We have seen no evidence that of any consumer confusion resulting from this term, despite the fact that it is now being widely used by member companies.
He pointed out that when terms in the proposals were considered cumulatively, as they were intended to be and would be interpreted in law, there was no scope for manipulation or exploitation.
“It is disingenuous for some to suggest that it is somehow in the interest of ‘big’ whisky companies to cause confusion through this description category,” he said. “There is no question of the name Cardhu being permitted for use on a blended malt Scotch whisky.”
What we said then:
“The phrase blended malt Scotch whisky is misleading and inappropriate because it takes the one word that was previously well-defined in all this – blends – and allows it to cross the river from the bank marked ‘malt and other grains’ to the one marked ‘just malts’. Effectively it erects a fence between a product from one distillery and one from several, instead of fencing off products which contain just malts from those that contain malt and other grains. We are yet to find anyone who thinks the new labeling is better than the old and will clear up the issue of definitions once and for all. And believe us, we’ve tried.”
Whisky Magazine editorial, issue 46
“I tried to explain about the SWA guidelines. They seemed as bewildered as everyone in Scotland I’ve talked to since the proposals were announced. They’re just going to cause more confusion is the consensus, so no change there. Though its intention was good, the SWA committee has led the industry up the wrong escalator and, rather than depositing us all at the correct destination, has dumped us in the car park.”
Dave Broom, Whisky Magazine, issue 46
What I’ve been tasting
Each month I’ll highlight the best whisky I’ve tasted in the previous four weeks. But as this is the first time the page has appeared I thought I’d pick my favourites from the year so far. I’ve decided not to go over the World Whisky Award winners because they have been well covered in Whisky Magazine. Suffice to say I was a judge at every stage and thought all the winners were exceptional and fully deserving of their titles.
In addition to those I have been thoroughly enjoying the following whiskies in the last few weeks:
The Dalmore 15 Year Old
Nose: Rich and sherried, juicy raisins, polished and flower-draped church on Easter Sunday
Palate: Lots of orange and berry fruits, spices and tannins
Finish: Rich woods and spices
Dalmore King Alexander III
Nose: Sophisticated and evolving, with vanilla, sweetness, cinnamon spice, plums and red liquorice
Palate: Orange and sweet spice, maraschino cherry and more red liquorice
Finish: Beautifully rounded and complete, lingering and with an appealing woodiness at the end
Highland Park 40 Year Old
Nose: Dark rum and raisin chocolate, sweet ginger and orange marmalade, dusty polished study
Palate: Age up front with an early tannin note, but it falls away to allow citrus, honeycomb wrapped in chili-flavoured chocolate and a range of other fruits to fight through
Finish: Long, mouth filling and balanced with peat and spices.
Mackmyra First Edition
Nose: Rich orange liqueuer, Drambuie, sweet ginger
Palate: Distinctive Swedish oil and peat up front, then cinnamon and children’s cough medicine, tangerine and finally earthy spicy notes
Finish: Light, fruity and peaty - quite wonderful
Port Charlotte Cask Strength 61.6%
Nose: Full throttle sooty smoke
Palate: Stunning! Beautiful mix of full flavoured confectionery and wonderful rich and deep peat smoke. One of the best peated whiskies I’ve ever tasted.
Finish: Long, smoky and very more-ish
