12 Oct 2010
Whisky Bible 2011
Posted by: Ruben In: * News
Yes, I still buy it. But I can’t help being stunned sometimes. Take this review of the Littlemill 1990 bottled by Malts of Scotland (cask #915).
N23 […] adorably curious […] T23 […] too good to be true […] F22.5 […] B22.5 Sukinda Singh has somehow bagged himself an eminently drinkable Littlemill. As if to prove, against the odds, that such a thing exists. He sometimes amazes me, that bloke. How does he do it…?
Well… Malts of Scotland is a German bottler. Single Malts of Scotland on the other hand (owned by Sukhinder Singh) is a series by The Whisky Exchange in the UK. Sukhinder sometimes amazes me as well, but not with this Littlemill! Jim’s obviously not tasting blind (or at least writing part of his notes after having seen the bottler’s name), how can such an error make it into the printed version?
As a side note, all of the entries of Malts of Scotland bottlings mention “192 bottles” or “96 bottles”. I suppose he was sent miniatures because MoS always fills 192x 5cl bottles (or 96x) apart from the actual run of full bottles. I can imagine people asking themselves why the 70cl bottle in their store has different numbers on the label.
Now I’m checking out the Lochside 1981 by The Whisky Agency. According to the Bible, there were two releases (54% and 55.5%, both sherry, no further information like bottling date, series, number of bottles…). Has anyone heard of this 55.5% version? I think there’s only one Lochside, but they get two different scores.
Update: Carsten Ehrlich from TWA was so kind to clarify. The 55.5% version is this one bottled for Whiskybox.de. While this cask was provided by TWA, I guess it would be hard for customers to recognize it based on the Bible’s description. Also, the 54% version (Insects series) is ex-bourbon wood. Thanks Carsten!
I appreciate Jim’s work and I must say I agree with a lot of scores this year (well… maybe not the award winners). But the basic information should be pristine in an encyclopaedic work.