Unnumbered review: some Barbera

not from the wine lake

Here's some Barbera. It's hard not to think of Barbera as supermarket wine at best, when it's grown in somebody's uncle's vineyard in Piemonte that can't ripen nebbiolo, and wine-lake-wine at worst, when the grape is grown for high yields and no particular reason somewhere else. But then someone thought that it was possible to make excellent wine from barbera, and they were right.

These are all Barbera DOC (but not DOCG) from Piemonte. They're all good -- call them B/B+ -- and they go well with food.

Querciola Barbera D’Alba 2005, 14% abv

intense black cherry and berry nose, with some interesting pitchy/woody and acetic notes.

deeply flavored palate with smooth tannins and a little acidity, but finishes a little thin.

Giulin Barbera del Monferrato 2008, 14.5%

densely colored. smells like the inside of an old barrel, in a nice way, and then some very dark and dry fruits open up. chewy and slightly sour entry, but then it becomes light and fruity. it feels very old-fashioned – like it was vinified (although I have no idea) in a big wooden vat with lots of stems and wild yeast – which I like. But nothing about it really stands out otherwise.

Boroli Quattro Fratelli Barbera D’Alba 2007, 14% abv

softer and more brightly acidic than the others, with some simple red fruit and minerals coming out on the palate. wood spices and minty herbs come out next, and the finish is the best part: the fruit becomes deeper and more tarry.

The Boroli is probably a little too simple and thinly-flavored to stand up on its own, but holds up well with food. The Querciola is the most concentrated of the bunch, but the Guilin is definitely worth trying, especially if you prefer a woodier, less fruit-forward style.

Review #119: Glen Spey 21yr 1989/2010, 50.4%, OB, first fill American oak, 5844 bottles

is this for real?

I don't know much about Glen Spey, but the name seems like a joke, as if someone named a French wine "Mas de Domaine Château," or something like that. But this makes more sense than that -- it's just a little plain, as far as names go. This one is still pretty widely available, oddly enough. I'm looking forward to it.

Nose: grassy -- more than I expected -- with a lot of chewy, meaty bourbon funkiness. What is bourbon funkiness, you ask? It's leather and corn and crème caramel and extracted oak spices, mostly, with some savory herbs and a distinctive sour note. Underneath all that there's a toasty malt core, and some fruit come out after a while, but you could almost mistake it for an unusually dry, oaky, savory bourbon.

Palate: Oak in your face. There are lots of soft, candied flavors, too, and some bananas and coconut, but the oak really grabs you (me).

Finish: lots of spices (clove, cinnamon, coriander) and toffee appear for the finish. I think it might be the best part.


Although this is enjoyable whisky, I'm a little disappointed: I was hoping to learn something about Glen Spey distillate, and instead I feel as if I learned more about distillate that sits in American oak for a long time. Still, I like American oak, and I like the departures from bourbon (the dry, savory herbaceousness) that this stuff does make.

score: 87

Review #118: Kavalan King Car "Conductor" Taiwanese Malt Whisky, NAS, 46%, OB

What is this, anyway?

It's single malt whisky from Taiwan, obviously, but I don't understand the range. The single-cask bottlings, that may or may not be called "Solist," are easy enough to understand; the others are more confusing. But I think it goes like this: the one called either nothing or "Classic" is mostly ex-bourbon barrels with a few sherry barrels; the one called "Concertmaster" is all ex-bourbon, and then finished in port barrels (definitely either barriques or pipes); and this one is a vatting of eight different barrel types, including a lots of different wine casks, but is mostly just Classic with a higher proportion of sherry barrels.

nose: soft sherry fruit with a little banana and coconut. It's a little young and grassy, but there's are some nice almonds and marshmallows, too. Some oak and that's about it. Very clean gentle nose.

palate: still very soft and maybe a little prickly, but the flavor is nicely rounded. the profile adds some toast and a lot of buttery toffee, but otherwise stays the same.

finish: the sherry fruit becomes juicier for a second and lingers nicely.


This is nice whisky -- very pleasant drinking and nothing objectionable. It's hard to see how it's worth the $110 or so that it costs, but I guess that's the way of the world.

score: 83

Review #117: Benromach Peat Smoke 2005/2013, 46% abv, OB, 67 PPM, aged in first-fill bourbon barrels

more Benromach

67 ppm is really a lot of peat -- it's higher by a fair measure than any of of the Kildalton distilleries. Of course, the phenols in the malt might not make it through the still ...

nose: well, yes, there's peat, but no, not twice as much as Lagavulin. It's an oily and sooty peat, with some funky vegetal notes in back, and then something like the inside of an angry vacuum cleaner (I imagine). There's not a whole lot else going on, but there are lots of nice sweet lemon drops, some furniture polish, and a cracker.

palate: sweet and then peat. gumdrops for an instant, and then the peat: inky and phenolic at first, opening up into weird humusy notes.

finish: sweet, oily, prickly, long. it really is very sweet -- maybe they should put ppm of sugar on the bottle, too.


I find it a little strange that (almost) all the peat monsters (that's lower case) have taken to sweetening up their distillate so much. But it works well in this case -- everything is well integrated and comfortable, even if not super-exciting.

score: 85

Review #116: Benromach 10yr Speyside Single Malt Scotch Whisky, 43%, OB

everybody's doing it

There have been a lot of reviews of this recently, occasioned, I guess, by the new packaging. I still have a bottle in the old kit, which I like better anyway. I haven't actually seen the new design in person yet.

This is the little distillery that Gordon and Macphail bought and re-fitted so that they'd still have access to whisky. The 10yr, I hear, is 80/20 bourbon casks and sherry casks, and then gets another year in oloroso butts for fun.

nose: stunningly deep and complex. lots of malt character under layers of smoke and sherry fruit. apples and pears, metallic notes, mint, dried apricots and plums, vanilla custard, toast, and oak spice. The peat is gentle and sooty, but runs through everything else. Some rubbery notes, too -- maybe that's from the sherry?

palate: curiously rich for 43%. smoke and honey, butter and tangy marmelade. bread and exotic wood.

finish: more phenols, sweet creamy fruit, a little licorice.


This is so far beyond most other standard bottlings it's hard to know what to say. There's no way that the price and quality stay on this level -- look for it to double in price and become half as good. (There must be some older whisky, and some really amazing sherry casks, in there.)

score: 88

Review #115: Laphroaig 20yr 1990/2010, 52.8% abv, The Nectar of the Daily Drams

and let's keep going with Laphroaig

Here's an older one, don't know much about it. No idea what to expect.

Nose: somewhat subtle, actually. a black, oily peat with rubber tires and lots of smaller wildflower and vegetal notes. Very faintly: toasted muesli with yoghurt and bits of orchard fruit. If you give it a long time to open up, there's a plummy meatiness, too. Like memories of a breakfast that was set on fire.

Palate: much less subtle. Oily and mouth-filling smoke, tempered by a plummy sweetness.

Finish: the peat still burns, but there's suddenly a lot of licorice, and peaches and plums and a little custard shine through. Becomes a little salty and seaweedy at the end.


This is all curiously subtle for Laphroaig -- it really demands a lot of attention, which is not how I think of Laphroaig. But the attention is well repaid, at least. Nice stuff.


score: 89

Review #114: Laphroaig Quarter Cask, NAS, 48%, OB

another day of  Laphroaig

This is the Quarter Cask, which I think was a duty-free special that was made into a regular bottling. It's NAS, but I think it's only about 5yr old, plus a short finish in a quarter cask. (Where do those little casks come from? What do they do with them afterward?) They bottle it at 48%, at least.

nose: fairly soft but distinctively coastal peat, with some salt and iodine in it, in addition to the smoke and wet dog. a whiff of clarified butter, too, along with butterscotch and cotton candy. smoky candy.

palate: lots of prickly smoke and wet dog, not a whole lot else going on. nice mouthfeel, though: 48% works well here. I thought it would be sweet, but it's not.

finish: long on the smoke. the buttery sweetness comes back a little, but it tempers the young whisky more than being a thing itself.


It's interesting to me that this manages to be more coastal, and less aromatic, than the 10yr. The added weight helps it, but the 10yr is still the more distinctive whisky. "Distinctive" isn't always better, but in this case I'll give it a point difference, even though I'm really happy to find the coastal notes.

score: 83