麥芽狂人版之台灣 vs. 蘇格蘭威士忌盲飲大賽
討論主題:麥芽狂人版之台灣 vs. 蘇格蘭威士忌盲飲大賽 [ 單一純麥 ]
回討論區列表Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
等級:
WILL TAIWAN DEFEAT SCOTLAND AGAIN? THE GREATEST BLIND TASTING SESSION EVER – #2: THE SEQUEL
(this session under the aegis of famous newspaper Zeitgeist)
(warning, tongue in cheek, please do not take this too seriously!)
After having been thinking (very) hard, we composed the most extraordinarily comprehensive line-up ever, in order to come up with the definitive answer to this utterly important question: have ‘foreign’ whiskies become better than Scotch? Of course, we had to select whiskies that were in a similar league so that the results couldn’t be biased, and here’s how we did it: we chose a stunningly wide assortment of 5 (five) whiskies that have all been bottled at between 40% and 44% ABV and that are all more or less gold in colour (what a brainwave, eh?)
What’s more, we shall number all whiskies at random, so that we can try them totally blind and not be influenced by their ‘pedigrees’. No need to say that it’ll be totally impossible to guess which is what and what is which within such a coherent and homogeneous line-up.
So without further ado, let’s try them if you please…
1. 
Colour: pale gold. Nose: pretty nice! Rather natural and maybe a tad simple but the maltiness is pleasant. Notes of cornflakes, orange cake and brioche, then ripe pears and strawberries that may suggest this is pretty young. Very faint smokiness and a little toasted wood. Grass. A tad average but well made. Mouth: a tad thin in the attack, but getting rather spirity and ‘alcoholic’, lacking body. A bit blendish if I may say so. Little middle. Finish: short but relatively clean. Comments: the nose was okayish but the palate didn’t really deliver. Lacks a little more structure – but it’s quite good globally. SGP:230 – 71 points.
2. 
Colour: gold. Nose: starts with a distinct OBE (slightly metallic, with quite some ‘good’ dust, old cupboard…) and an obvious peatiness, with ashes, coal oven and even a little mint. Rather complex, maybe not very big. Keeps developing, more on leather and cigar box, roasted nuts and maybe a little incense. Subtle! Mouth: creamy, oily and herbal attack, with quite some pepper, fig jam and cough drops. Quite some peat as well, unusual notes of coriander and maybe just a slight bitterness. Honeydew, mint, cough syrup. Good body. Finish: rather long, spicier, but there’s also even more honey and cough syrup. Oomphy. Comments: very good, old style (and most probably an old bottling). SGP:453 – 86 points.
3. 
Colour: pale gold. Nose: yeah! Starts on a lot of honey and other ‘beehivy’ notes, with many rich yet fresh fruity notes that are soon to turn up. Ripe apples, pineapples and bananas, then more caramel crème and nougat, then superb notes of liquorice and aniseed, and finally these slightly resinous notes that scream ‘old casks’. Those can sometimes be over the top but this time they really add depth and complexity to the whisky. Superb nose (where I might detect quite some old Glen Grant and/or Caperdonich and/or Glenlivet and/or Glenrothes and/or…). Mouth: a wee oaky blast at very first sips (cinnamon, nutmeg) but then it just won’t stop unfolding, shooting flavours like arrows, one after the other. Dried oranges, coconuts, bananas, spearmint, liquorice, cloves, butter pears, marshmallows, lemon balm… It’s endless, both ‘old’ and juvenile in style, which I believe is a perfect combo. Finish: maybe not the longest ever but the coconut stands out, as well as some banana skin and roasted bread. No drying tannins whatsoever. Comments: fresh, mature, complex and entrancing to follow. SGP:561 - 91 points.
4. Colour: full gold. Nose: the same kind of superb resinous notes are here as well but right from the start, together with quite some melon jam, very ripe nectarines (make that peaches) and apricots and quite some cinnamon. Hard to say whether this one is older than the previous one or not. Also a little heather honey ala Highland Park, as well as a little graphite and linseed oil. Also a very, very faint grassiness (chives?) Great nose, very balanced and very elegant. Mouth: extremely coherent, with once again a little more ‘oak’ than in the previous one, and maybe more ‘responsiveness’ as well but also a little less complexity, just a little. Cinnamon infused in melon juice, topped with a little honey and just pinches of dried ginger. Very, very good old whisky. Oh, and a little salt. Finish: long, all on melon and cinnamon now. And a little mint. Comments: all right, all right, of course it’s an old Bruichladdich! SGP:551 - 91 points.
5. Colour: full gold. Nose: balanced but moderately aromatic, with some nuts and toasted bread, a little honey again, a little wood smoke (or rather fir cone smoke) and just wee hints of wine barrel and liquorice wood. Pleasant, but very light profile. Mouth: good attack but it’s having a little trouble after the three previous ones, and screams ‘I’m young’. Not that it’s undrinkable, not at all, but it feels a tad ‘aromatized’ if I may say so. Hints of blackcurrant leaf tea (or buds), quite some fresh oak (but it’s not plankish), a little ginger and quite some vanilla. Falls a bit in the middle. Some candy sugar and a feeling that’s a tad ‘rummy’ at times. Finish: not long for sure but clean and maltier, the notes of candy sugar having grown bigger as well. Also more honey. Pleasant. Comments: a very good dram for sure, even if it’s a tad ‘lab whisky’. I guess it would have benefited from a slightly higher ABV. SGP:331 - 74 points.
Drum roll, revelations, verdict and ranking:#1 and winners ex aequo with 91 points each: 3. and 4., i.e. Black Bull 40 yo (40.2%, Duncan Taylor, blend, 2010) and Bruichladdich 33 yo 'Legacy V' (40.9%, OB, 1690 bottles)
#3: 2. with 86 points, White Heather 8 yo (43.4%, OB, blend, 1980s)
#4: 5. with 74 points, Kavalan 'Concertmaster' NAS (40%, OB, Taiwan, Port Cask Finish, 2009)
#5: 1. with 71 points, Armorik (42%, OB, Warenghem Distillery, single malt, France, 2009) Okay, let’s shoot a press release now… Joking! (but we could write quite a few catchy headlines, couldn’t we?) What did we learn? Nothing. Does such a session make any sense? Of course not. Old White Heather blends were generally great. These Bruichladdichs from the early 1970s are always superb. The brand new Black Bull 40yo is a blend, but obviously not just any blend (it’s one or maybe the highest scoring blend in my book). This Kavalan ‘Concertmaster’ at 40% does not display the fullness that other bourbon matured versions already have (some of the ‘Solists’). The French Armorik is well made but it cannot compete with most Scottish malts or prestige blends, although they now have some cask strength versions that are said to be very good. Anyway, shall we do this kind of weird session again? I hope not, as we always compare similar whiskies and always within the same session.
(with apologies to The Times – well, not really.)
回應共 25 則， 第 1 / 2 頁
酒有
評價:+2-0
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
藝術與享受
評價:+188-0
酒有
評價:+2-0
亨利
評價:+26-0
酒有
評價:+2-0
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
回應帳號:藝術與享受(dzdzww)
沒問題, 簡單敘述一下:
1. Armorik (42%, OB, Warenghem Distillery, single malt, France, 2009) 71分
2. White Heather 8 yo (43.4%, OB, blend, 1980s) 86分
3. Black Bull 40 yo (40.2%, Duncan Taylor, blend, 2010) 91分
4. Bruichladdich 33 yo 'Legacy V' (40.9%, OB, 1690 bottles) 91分
5. Kavalan 'Concertmaster' NAS (40%, OB, Taiwan, Port Cask Finish, 2009) 74分
Serge 認為要比較威士忌的話, 要選類似的威士忌來比較高下.
(也就是說, 隨便選威士忌來盲飲比較高下, 實在是 ........) 
來哈拉
評價:+0-0
藝術與享受
評價:+188-0
亨利
評價:+26-0
louisli
評價:+316-0
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
cookie08
評價:+2-0
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
Second
評價:+6-0
這個比喻很有趣…
shoart
評價:+206-0
酒販來了
評價:+114-1
回應帳號:Charlie-W(chingcwang)
有點 想笑...
英國人不知道是不是之前輸的很不甘願....
這一次派出中年人出馬..{40歲的某牌.}...
這還用比..3歲的葛馬蘭幾乎一定輸...
老實說..上一次的3歲PK3歲..也不算公平..因為早熟的葛馬蘭有點勝之不武..{葛馬蘭會贏.在我們大家的預期中}...
但是這次竟派出的代表中有40歲的出現...就有一點讓人覺得誇張了..
葛瑪蘭酒廠.....我對他有很深的期望..儘管他現在的價格讓人批評...可是按照歷史經驗的軌跡發展..它以後出品的東西會越來越便宜..甚至.兩年以後..大家會看到他們出現威脅到進口品牌的商品..{有可能.但是.不是現在..}.
這一場對比有些無厘頭....
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
天生贏家
評價:+22-0
Charlie-W
評價:+9-0
回應帳號:Charlie-W(chingcwang)
南非的新聞:
Taiwan makes better whiskey than Scotland, Ireland, England
A Burns Night stunt went horribly, tragically wrong when a panel of highly regarded experts – proud citizens of the Empire to a man – declared a whiskey distilled in Taiwan to be superior to the competition from the United Kingdom. The shock brought a quiver to even the stiffest upper lip.
It was a bad idea to begin with. In celebration of Burns Night, which honours the only half-decent poet the Scots can lay claim to (and whom they’ve therefore canonised), Robert Burns, The Times arranged a whiskey taste test. A blind one.
The newspaper didn’t have honest intentions from the start. It planned to slip a recently-introduced English whiskey, St George’s Distillery Chapter 3, into the mix and then make fun of the tasters when they pronounced it to be at least acceptable. Thrown into the mix on a whim was Kavalan, made in Taiwan using a distillery built with Scottish expertise.
And when Kavalan came out tops, there was much wailing and anguish and rending of garments.
Unfortunately, the testing wasn’t an officially recognised one and on reflection the judges have been declared poorly educated, mentally deficient and blacklisted at distilleries across the Empire.
Such is the terrible price exacted by blind, and especially double-blind, taste tests. Pepsi beats Coca-Cola, Japanese beer beats Belgian and cheap chocolate is chosen over designer. Clearly the methodology is fatally flawed and should be outlawed before it does any further harm.
By Phillip de Wet