Engage in conversation with pretty much any whisky enthusiast about all things whisky, and chances are not before long quite a few ‘hot button’ topics will rise to the surface. The use of colouring and chill filtration are pet peeves to many, as is bottling strength and, quite likely, the use (or absence) of age statements on whisky labels. The strict regulations on whisky in Scotland and a multitude of other countries insist that only the youngest component can be revealed about a bottle of whisky. As such, it isn’t such a dumb idea in my opinion, but it has led to some frankly downright cynical advertising and marketing strategies throughout the industry. Utterly meaningless terms like ‘special reserve’, ‘distiller’s choice’ or other ‘old and rare’ descriptions are just borderline misleading marketing flannel, meant to lure in unsuspecting customers into buying what they believe is something quite special. And I get it, really, I do understand why it might be difficult to mention a 4 or 5 year old statement on a bottle that contains whisky at least double that age, as it could and probably would make it difficult to sell it somewhere around 60 or 50 quid.
Even more so, the psychology behind giving whisky an attractive or mysterious name (often referencing to its heritage or location) simply works when it comes down to making a rather hefty price tag easier to swallow. Coughing up a significant amount of cash for something called ‘Nadurra’, ‘Teapot Dram’ or ‘Valkyrie’ seems perfectly accessible, but put in that 4 or 5 or even 7 yo statement somewhere and chances are you’d indeed feel as if you’re being cheated, or short-changed at least. Simply put: what may have well been a rule implemented with the best intentions to provide clarity and transparency, has backfired on all parties concerned. Compass Box has made a bold statement in 2016 releasing the ‘three year old deluxe’, which contains less than 1% of 3 year old whisky and over 99% of much older whisky from Clynelish and Talisker, to emphasize the ridiculous situation many producers and bottlers find themselves into, and over the years, distilleries have wound ways to bypass the situation to a certain extent, like Tomatin with its ‘Two Decades’ release, while others like Bruichladdich and Adnamurchan have come up with clever ways to reveal as much information as possible by using block chain technology, so let us hope the minds on this matter within the SWA will ripen as time goes by.
However, and I’m speaking from a personal perspective here, at the end of the day I’m not overly fussed about having an age statement on a bottle of whisky. It’s a nice piece of information, sure, but, frankly, that’s all it is. And it doesn’t actually tell you anything about the quality of what’s inside. Even more so, all too often it has become an equally cynical excuse for some producers to charge premium prices for anything even barely over 15 or 16 years old. So while I would indeed embrace the idea of being given full disclosure about the age of my whisky, I can only plead that it would be the age of all of them, not just the youngest component. They can even keep the NAS approach on the front label for all I care, but would it be such a horrendous thought to disclose this information somewhere on the back label or on the box? It would be a breath of fresh air and a declaration of respect towards the customer seeing that sort of information disclosed, rather than having to read yet another story on the whisky being made ‘from the clearest of spring water’ or it being ‘laid to rest in the finest quality oak casks’.
Just planting seeds here…
Until that day comes (and it may well never come, I’m fully aware), in an optimistic, naïve sort of way, I like to believe that blenders and producers use NAS whiskies to create something worth embracing and celebrating, picking and combining younger and more mature stock to create whiskies with as spot on balance between the quality and flavours of both spirit and cask. And therefore, the coming weeks I’ll be going through NAS whiskies to see what’s what. There will be obvious choices of whiskies celebrated and embraced by many enthusiasts, but hopefully a few less obvious choices as well. I’m aiming mostly at cask strength releases here (always a good way for producers to persuade potential customers that you’re not taking the piss), although I’m kicking things off with a 46% ABV, much hyped, relatively new blended malt that caught everyone’s attention earlier this year. Everybody talked about, it, everybody wanted it, and now that it has been OSWA nominated*, I feel it’s time to give it my due attention. Please step up, Campbeltown Loch!
Campbeltown Loch, 46% ABV, natural colour, UCF, 2021 release, MSRP €40-45 / £35-40
Nose
Farmyard mixed with sweetness leading into sweet and sour notes, with some orange zest and citrus and soft peat. Vegetal / leafy with a dairy- cheese note representing the Wee Town Funk. Interestingly, the dairy note also translates into a buttery sensation, going slightly sour towards the end. Intriguing and pleasant, and, despite also youthful, deceitfully complex and ‘busy’. It starts off fairly straightforward, but every time you come back to, something has changed, or a new note appears, resulting in a very interesting development and exploration.
Palate
Soft peat off the bat. Not overwhelming but definitely more clear than on the nose. Slightly vegetal – farmyard (dry and wet hay) as well. Minerally- chalky. A gentle sweetness (sugar coated lemons?) balances this out. Cheesy/dairy again, with a medium mouthfeel.
Finish
The peat and citrus notes linger and its pleasantly long.
Final thoughts
Quite complex, quite young and quite lovely. Subtle, almost understating itself in fact, but it has that Campbeltown DNA running through it from start to finish. Still fairly spirit driven, but what it brings is very well balanced and nicely integrated. Don’t think of this as a 1 on 1 replacement for Springbank, though. Yes, the bottle design is similar and there definitely is Springbank/Longrow/Hazelburn in there, but my overall bet would be that it was mainly Glengyle and Glen Scotia that contributed to this vatting (edit: After I wrote this review I got it pretty much straight from the horses mouth that Glen Scotia was in fact the smallest contributor to this blended malt. Imposter syndrome is real now) . And I’m definitely not complaining, because the end result delivers. Living in a time where you need to be super dedicated in order to actually get your hands on anything Springbank, I feel the people at J&A Mitchell & Co. have responded in the best possible way. For a number of reasons, cranking up production at Springbank is very difficult, so the second best thing they could have done, was to come up with this: a worthy, affordable (I paid €43 for my bottle) reincarnation of an old brand of blended whisky, only this time consisting solely of all 5 Campbeltown malts. Intrinsically, I’d give this 84/100, but bang for buck, it’s well deserving of an extra, so the hammer falls at 85/100 (very good indeed).
*If the abbreviation OSWA doesn’t ring a bell: it’s short for Online Scotch Whisky Awards. It’s the only whisky awards fully driven by the whisky community, with two of the most popular WhiskyTube Channels – Aqvavitae and Ralfy – in the driving seat, but backed up by over 50 other channels, blogs, whiskybars and what not. Until October 16, you two can have your say about which whiskies you deem worthy of praise and celebration. It doesn’t matter if you’re just starting in your jourey or have been into whisky for ages, the more people actually vote, the stronger the message from us, the community, towards the industry! Cast in your votes in 9 categories here: https://www.oswa.co.uk/publicpoll2022 if you want to know more about why I feel the OSWA’s matter so much, please click here.
Comments