A good example of this is Springbank, the Campbeltown distillery that makes its normal well-regarded single malt... but also makes a heavily peated version (Longrow) and a triple-distilled smooth and gentle version (Hazelburn). Another example - and one directly related to this review - is the recently resurrected Bruichladdich (Brookh-LAH-dee) distillery.
A respected but small Islay distillery, Bruichladdich closed in 1994 after a long history, only to be resurrected by dedicated investors in 2000. Since reopening clever branding and positioning and apparent attention to product seem to have brought Bruichladdich near the forefront of the single malt world - I see their bright teal 10 Year "The Laddie" offering everywhere I shop, and they are talked about in all the blogs and review sites.
Bruichladdich's own resurrected offerings, the ones carrying the Bruichladdich name, despite being Islay whiskies are either unpeated or very lightly peated. Deciding they wanted to expand on their current lineup they have created two new brands - Port Charlotte (heavily peated) and Octomore (ridiculously superpeated).
So today I'm lapping up a dram of the basic Port Charlotte offering - strangely called The Peat Project, which is oddly suggestive of a Frankenstein experiment, and seems to imply that the effort is either unfinished or not wholly serious.
It's No Age Statement, so it's a mix of old and young. Heavily peated in this case means 44 phenol parts per million (the standard industry measurement for peat content). By contrast, Ardbeg is around 55, Caol Ila is 35, Lagavulin around 35, and Laphroaig around 45. Non-chill filtered, uncolored, and bottled at 46% ABV, let's see what this Islay distiller fared in this project:
Nose: Surprisingly unappetizing nose! Unpleasant scents abound: Rubber, acetone, antiseptic, and a buttery note that is borderline rancid (!). That sweet yet chemical smell of postage stamp glue, with vanilla extract (!). Possibly even thin hints of turpentine (!). Only after these initial notes fade do you get pepper and smoke and salt. Almost no alcohol, interestingly. If you let the glass sit for a long while - 15 minutes or more - the glue and butter scents recede a little, which is a mercy. After a dozen sips or so, I stopped sniffing it altogether and enjoyed it a lot more.
*ONE DAY LATER*
I let the bottle sit for a day, and in the meantime cleared my palate with a bottle of Amontillado sherry in the bath. Delicious choice, I might add. I felt like an English lord, named something like the Fourth Duke Chestershire, Edmund St. George Gallingham Carlingstone. Sorry, sherry thoughts intruding there.
When I revisited this bottle all the worst notes here had softened noticeably. I believe strongly in the spirit of fairness, and thought this review needed to reflect the update.
I still find the nose unpleasant, but nowhere near the "actually offensive" level it was when first decanted. I should also note that most whiskies do not radically change day to day like this, either, but if they do I'm going to talk about it. So here is an update, after the bottle has been left standing for a day:
DAY TWO: Rubbery and buttery, but very light elements of both. Much heavier vanilla than the first time, but still the overtones of glue and turpentine. Much lighter, though. However, the bulk of the scent is nutty, like Caol Ila - peanuts, hazelnuts, walnuts, and especially cashews. This is the most cashew-scented thing I've found outside of a cashew. Still a little salty, still smoky.
Mouthfeel: Very full, lots of smoke, oily and ashy.
Palate: As good as the nose is bad! I'm not sure I've ever experience such a huge disparity between a nose and a palate. Absolutely none of the rubbery buttery gluey notes are present in the taste. What you do get is loads of pouring smoke, a nice nuttiness (cashew!), some savory BBQ notes, possibly smoked fish. Coal and cereal throughout, but especially on the back end. Lime peel hints.
Quite young - there is an abundance of brash young alcohol here, although the smoke covers most of it. It colors the other flavors, though, and dims what potential richness it might otherwise have, quite a bit. This reminds me of a very young Caol Ila because of the nutty flavors and gentle coal. The taste is good, however young.
DAY TWO
The same, just slightly richer. Still young, still smokey, still very nutty, still lightly savory. Cereal backbone remains. Still brash and alcoholic and evidences much young whisky.
Finish: Smoke and peat, like most Islay single malts. Peat is king of this land and lets you know it by outlasting every other denizen from the high throne.
DAY TWO
Shorter than before, but same flavors.
Verdict: This was $55 near me, which is too much for the awful nose, but about right for the nice - if brash - taste. It's a tough call, but honestly if I had $55 to spend on an Islay, I would buy Caol Ila or Ardbeg or Laphroaig over this, all day long. This really IS a "project" as the name implies; it feels young, raw, unfinished, a curio. Worth a shot if you are really curious or you find it in a bar. Not Recommended.
DAY TWO
This is better now, but the same ultimate test applies: if I had $55 for an Islay Scotch, would I buy this? No - it would come at least fourth in line, and maybe lower. But it is much more competitive now. I don't know what happened in the bottle beyond oxidization between last night and tonight, but The Peat Project has mellowed considerably, to its favor. The less rancid butter in my whisky, the better. But it didn't change enough for me to push it above Caol Ila 12, Laphroaig 10 Year, Ardbeg 10 Year, etc.
Link to the Bruichladdich website for The Peat Project: http://www.bruichladdich.com/the-whisky/port-charlotte/the-peat-project
*EDIT* I found this site which may explain some of the scents happening here: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/fyi-why-does-scotch-smell-band-aids
No comments:
Post a Comment