Whisky Fringe 2010

[The Craw]

Spirit of the Fringe goes to Bunnahabhain 25yo:

http://www.royalmilewhiskies.com/catego ... 0&lkid=111

I didn't try it this year (but I did have the pleasure of trying three/four from the 'top 10') however I thought the new 12yo Bunny NCF/46.3% was a cracker and a great step-up in quality.

I'm now 100% sure of the commonly agreed opinion that you don't need to go to any other whisky festivals really, with Whisky fringe being clearly the pinnacle of them all.

Nice to meet lots of folks and pals there, old and new.

[MacDeffe]

The new Bunna looks exciting, any other new releases worth mentioning ?

The Bunna 25, isn't that a 5-6 or more since that came ?

I got a bottle of it so nice to know its good

/Macdeffe

[Douglas]

I didn't try the Bunny 25 and Signet again this year but had them both as favourites at last year's Fringe. I would have made room for them if only I'd remembered the spare liver.

It's impressive that 4 out of the top 5 bottlings are below cask strength, and the 5th is a relatively low strength very old grain. When I'm sampling so many I worry that I'll lose the lower strength whiskies as the afternoon rolls on. Good to see that quality shines through regardless.

Another favourite for me was the Berry Bros Clynelish 1982. Bottled at 46% I thought this was just classic Clynelish character and intensely delicious. Definitely a candidate for the voucher. Also loved their Glen Scotia 1992.

Apart from the DL Caledonian, which was at least as good as the earlier 1965 casks bottled in the Clan Denny range a few years back, I really enjoyed the Berry Bros Invergordon, the Duncan Taylor North British, and the ever reliable Hedonism. Another great year for grains at the Fringe.

Very interesting to see the Laddie X4+3 doing so well in sixth. I had skipped this one on the back of RMW's own tasting notes, which are well worth a read... http://www.royalmilewhiskies.com/produc ... 0000000262
Would be interested to hear from anyone who voted for that one!

[Arthur Motley]

That Laddich X4+3 note is probably going to be tempered with a second note. When the results came in I couldn't understand how a whisky could feature that was so slated in a blind tasting by our Edinburgh staff, who are aren't mugs (and Iain). So we got an open bottle of this and I gave it blind to a few office staff and had a dram myself. Its a bit unusual but its not that bad at all. Summery, with almost gin-like botanicals in the flavour. Needs water but its not a bad spirit to my mind.

Either the edinburgh tasting team had a bad bottle (my memory of it was that it was a sample bottle, could have been grubby) or they just got a bit carried away as sometimes happens with group tastings. When I ran the SMWS panel I used to resubmit samples if I felt strong characters had influenced the rest of the group. Scores could vary by 30% on same whisky.

I retried Bunnahabhain 25 too. I'm pretty sure there has been a second bottling of this since it was launched. We had a note in the product description saying it was a first batch of 400 bottles, which obviously hadn't been updated since its release years ago. I've asked Burns Stewart about this.

[Douglas]

Hi Arthur, I wasn’t doubting for a moment that both results were honest ratings. It’s just interesting see such a wide disparity.

I don’t know of any other drink whose appreciation can be so influenced by outside factors. The highs can be incredible and the lows can be undrinkable, sometimes from the same bottle.

My own whisky enjoyment is heavily affected by the time of day, my mood, and what I’ve been eating or drinking beforehand (food, soft drinks, other whiskies – whether sherried, peated, cask strength and so on.)

My biggest influences seem to be the environment I’m in, my expectations of the whisky, and top of my list, the company I’m in. Perhaps these last three explain why I enjoy Whisky Fringe so much. Tamper with them at your peril!

It used to be that we’d have access at best to a couple of published notes for a whisky. And if they disagreed or didn’t match our own experiences then we would blame the bottle, or think it was a different batch, or wonder if the reviewer had been nobbled!

Now, thanks to the Internet, we often see multiple group or individual ratings of the same whisky. There seems to be a group dynamic at work that affects a group tasting or even a whole forum where the same whisky can be lauded here and dismissed there. I’m convinced that external factors are often the explanation and not different batches or ‘off’ bottles.

Maybe distillers should start selling ambient packs to put me in the right place for drinking their product - DVD of still room, recording of Jim McEwan telling a few of his tales, distillery aroma candles, neutral pre-dram nibbles, inflatable friends… well maybe not!

I envy those people who can taste and review and score a whisky identically each time they try it. I surely can’t. But it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

So I hope you’ll leave all the tastings on your site. They all add to make a real picture of the whisky.

And thanks again for a great event!

[Mr Tattie Heid]

Maybe distillers should start selling ambient packs to put me in the right place for drinking their product - DVD of still room, recording of Jim McEwan telling a few of his tales, distillery aroma candles, neutral pre-dram nibbles, inflatable friends… well maybe not!

If they could replicate the howling October wind and horizontal rain outside the shuddering Bowmore shop, as I experienced a few years ago, they'd have a real hit.

Good points on experiencing whisky, Douglas, echoing things I've been saying all along (which automatically makes you a genius). The fellow who writes the beer column in our local paper said the other day that the one-ounce samples of beer people try at the bar, in order to decide what to drink, generally tell you little or nothing, and you really need to just take a leap of faith and go ahead and have a pint. I agree with that, and feel the same about, for example, whisky samples handed out at a festival, or even drams at the bar. To really get to know a whisky, you need to take that leap of faith and buy a bottle. Of course, we all have limits on what we can buy (and consume), so we do want to choose wisely; a sample can certainly tell you if something is just totally not your cuppa. But I often feel that many people are just too timid, too afraid of having to slog through something they don't absolutely love. And I think sometimes they get a little too hung up on ratings and reviews. Arthur's experience with the X4 and the SMWS panels show the pitfalls of that. It's all very well to take such information on board, but at the end, it's your experience, and it will be unique to you. --Unless, of course, you allow someone else to tell you what you are experiencing.

[Douglas]

Good points on experiencing whisky, Douglas, echoing things I've been saying all along (which automatically makes you a genius).

Nicely written as always, Mr T.

If they could replicate the howling October wind and horizontal rain outside the shuddering Bowmore shop, as I experienced a few years ago, they'd have a real hit.

Absoutely. I'll add that to the ambient package. Bad weather in particular seems to have a very positive effect on whisky. Maybe that's why we enjoy it more in winter.

I also agree about the leap of faith. Samples or even miniatures seem too little to get to know a whisky, although they give me an immediate reaction to work with. However, I think the 20cl size has great potential to explore unfamiliar whiskies at reasonable cost. A small hop of faith perhaps?

I often read tasting notes to see if there are any serious defects that might influence my buying decision. I expect distillery notes to be more a product of Marketing, but I trust Loch Fyne and Royal Mile to say it as they find it, and often in an entertaining way. I hope they don't find commercial pressures forcing them to sanitise their reviews.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

LFW are particularly impressive in their willingness to call a rubbish whisky what it is (or at least what Mr Joynson honestly perceives it to be).

I agree that more 20cl bottles, or 35cl ones, at least, would be a good thing. And I also agree that honest tasting notes will at least keep you away from some things that you know you aren't going to like (e.g. heavy peat or sherry, sulphur, etc).

That pounding rain and wind at Bowmore actually almost had me enjoying what I was sampling (a 16yo cs ex-bourbon). Given my general distaste for Bowmore, that's definitely something!

[Iain M]

That Laddich X4+3 note is probably going to be tempered with a second note. When the results came in I couldn't understand how a whisky could feature that was so slated in a blind tasting by our Edinburgh staff, who are aren't mugs (and Iain). So we got an open bottle of this and I gave it blind to a few office staff and had a dram myself. Its a bit unusual but its not that bad at all. Summery, with almost gin-like botanicals in the flavour. Needs water but its not a bad spirit to my mind.

Needless to say I was quite shocked at the result with X4+3 when I saw the top10, I would be quite interested in trying it again - Mug or not

However as I rarely take down my own notes, (as I am usually the one who knows the whisky) the notes for the X4 was quite hunanimously a dislike, partly to do with lack of character and more of burn, If I remember correctly.

As you have discussed above the environment for tasting in the shop (which some of you may have been to and witnessed) can alter quite drastically along with the enthusiasm and atmosphere of the guys. Yet we do tell you it as it comes, only ever such a little 'censoring' required! I can completely understand why it was different in the office and the chance for a 'odd' sample bottle, which has been known to happen.

It was good to see the Grain scoring highly, bunnie 25, springer 18 and OP 17 some good solid whiskies, however was hoping for more Independant bottlings alas not this year in the top10, with the exception of the grain and the PE (another shocker).

I guess I'll be heading to the Bruichladdich stand at Glasgow whisky fest.

[Douglas]

Needless to say I was quite shocked at the result with X4+3 when I saw the top10, I would be quite interested in trying it again - Mug or not

I hope you'll tell us your second impressions!

Do you think this is a whisky that will show better once your palate has been tempered by a few earlier whiskies? I seem to get less sensitive to defects as I go on.

It was good to see the Grain scoring highly, bunnie 25, springer 18 and OP 17 some good solid whiskies, however was hoping for more Independant bottlings alas not this year in the top10, with the exception of the grain and the PE (another shocker).

Agreed. The independents did us proud again and I enjoyed extended visits to Berry Bros, Douglas Laing, Signatory and G&M this year, and Adelphi and Duncan Taylor in particular last year. They offer such a broad choice I wonder if it's just that statistically few get to sample each individual treasure.

[Iain M]

Agreed. The independents did us proud again and I enjoyed extended visits to Berry Bros, Douglas Laing, Signatory and G&M this year, and Adelphi and Duncan Taylor in particular last year. They offer such a broad choice I wonder if it's just that statistically few get to sample each individual treasure.

Thats exactly what it is, the number of people at these events that 'agree' on a specific cracking whisky from an independant bottler will be tiny. Yet it is so much easier to rate whiskies like Signet, Glenfarclas 40 as they are so 'unique' and well re-knowned.

[Willie JJ]

the notes for the X4 was quite hunanimously a dislike, partly to do with lack of character and more of burn, If I remember correctly.

I think that kind of thing can do better at a festival where folks palates are desensitised by many drams. The burn will create a spike of interest in even the most jaded palate.

I envy those people who can taste and review and score a whisky identically each time they try it.

You might as well envy a Unicorn. You're just as likely to meet one.

I'm not surprised by the top four in the poll this year as they are all fine whiskies. The 1965 Caledonian grain was stunning in my opinion and was my pick of the event. However, there were many great drams that haven't made the top ten and making a sensible choice was virtually impossible. I reckon I tried 44 whiskies over the two days and I would consider buying a ridiculous number of them. The quality was really that good.

Overall, I can only say that I thought the Fringe this year was as good as any I can remember. Many thanks to all the exhibitors that put up such excellent whiskies and to the RMW team that created such a great event.

[Douglas]

I envy those people who can taste and review and score a whisky identically each time they try it.

You might as well envy a Unicorn. You're just as likely to meet one.

But I might run into a few who think they can.

[ClubSmed]

I had an amazing time at this event, it was very hard to try and chose only one bottling to vote for. I really can't wait till next year.

The things I particularly enjoyed about this event (not in order) were:
The Venue (such a beautiful place and the high ceilings certainly helped with the heat)
The number of Independents (this sent an already impressive range of malts to unbelievable levels)
The Organisation (there was very little waiting around despite the size of the queue to get in)
The Oatcakes (too many whisky festivals neglect this important palate cleanser/ reviver)
The People (It was great to meet up with Butephoto, Willie JJ, Livvy and others)
The half time oranges (an excellent idea, great to get chance at more than the usual range)
The Forewarning (sending the details of the stand locations and availability before hand was genius)
The Voucher (making the tickets double as £10 off a bottle is very generous)