1 | aw

January 1st, 2010 at 18:00

Funny, I never even heard of the Lp Triple Wood before – probably because it’s available mainly thru Travel Retail and I only came across your site half way thru 2009. At £66 for a litre bottle (e.g from TWE) I think I’ll stick to the Quarter Cask.

In addition to Google Analytics it’s also possible to measure the “Ruben effect”. E.g. within a day or two of your review of the Brora 30yo 1976, all the sites that carried bottles had sold out!

Really enjoyed the Glenugie, which I bought before your review. I’m looking forward to the Mannochmore, whose purchase was influenced by your (and others) review.

My New Year’s Resolutions: to not stick with the drams I know and love, but to explore more expressions, and distilleries that are new to me (so I’d better try and get past the Quarter Cask).

My New Year Resoutions wish for the whisky companies:- that those who haven’t caught up yet start bottling without artificial colouring and chill filtering, and at a minimum strength of 46%.

Happy New Year!

2 | Ruben

January 1st, 2010 at 18:20

Hi Andrew, thanks for your reply. I agree with the chill filtration and the “golden” strength of 46%, but the colouring is a tricky one. There’s an interesting experiment (by Bert Bruyneel) about colouring / filtration in the latest Malt Maniacs newsletter. The conclusion of the experiment is that caramel can add depth and complexity and that nearly everyone prefers a coloured version when tasted blind!

3 | aw

January 1st, 2010 at 20:36

Ruben, thanks for the heads-up; that’s an interesting read. My instinct/feeling is that caramel can add depth and complexity to certain drams (e.g. Lagavulin 16) but can detract from others (e.g. Bunna 12). In the end I’d like to see it removed from all whiskies – let the spirit and the cask(s) stand on their own. Like Paul Dejong, I prefer an ‘honest’ product. If caramel were cut out of the equation, maybe a better wood policy and more careful cask blending can make up for what (in some cases) is lost?

4 | Ruben

January 1st, 2010 at 23:25

It’s easy to prefer honesty or craftmanship of course, but on the other hand there’s no point in blocking evolution… Cars would be more ‘honest’ without all those electronics, but would the overall driving experience be better? What’s the point in prohibiting caramel if every other aspect of distillation is computerized, analized and standardized nowadays?
I’m partly playing devil’s advocate of course, I don’t have a clear cut opinion about this ‘honesty’, certainly if it doesn’t necessarily lower the complexity / quality. There are other unconventional (now illegal) manipulations such as the wood staves used by Compass Box. The result was great, so why bother really? I just want whisky with the best possible taste.

5 | Jeff H.

January 4th, 2010 at 22:44

Hi Ruben,
I really enjoy your concise, consistent reviews. You really helped me out in my whisky discovery quest this past year.

Keep up the great work, and I look forward to more fantastic reviews.

Cheers,
Jeff

6 | Best in Blog #58: Top 10 Whiskies of 2009; Distilleries Doing Good Work | Whisky Party

January 5th, 2010 at 04:34

[...] Notes also has a best of 2009 post [...]

7 | Ruben

January 5th, 2010 at 11:48

Thanks Jeff, I’m glad my reviews were helpful.
Keep up the good work yourself.