Bit of an intro
This is apparently from the "West Highland" which I'm not certain I believe is a proper region. I'm willing to call it a sub-region since it's a part of the highlands which is a proper region. To be honest the regions don't mean a great deal anyway, since two distilleries next door to each to each other can taste very different. According to Wikipedia, it has a taste profile kind of halfway between a typical highland malt and a typical island malt, so I'm expecting something a little smokey, maybe with dry herbal flavours, but with some sweeter notes of flowers, fruit and honey. We'll have to wait and see.
The distillery is in the little port town of Oban, which isn't really a surprise. Apparently the distillery was built first and then the town. 1794 is when it was founded, by two blokes called John and Hugh Stevenson who opperated it until 1866 which is seventy two year, so I guess they just got too old for the game and sold it on. It went through a couple of new owners and was rebuilt in 1898. In 1923 it struggled a lot because a major blending company called Pattison's of Leith went under. I assume they were using a large proportion of Oban's product in their blends, and Oban distillery had a load of whisky they couldn't sell. In 1925 it was sold to Dewars and joined Distiller's Company, probably because it couldn't keep going independently, or at least whoever was in charge of it didn't think it was worth trying.
It's been "silent" for several years since it was opened. "Silent" in whisky terms just means it's not producing anything, but that's not too much of a problem when you have to age your product for years anyway. Oban was silent because of building work, and had enough whisky in storage to tide it over. It was silent from 1931 to 1937, then again from 1969 to 1972 if your interested.
The Oban distillery has only two stills, one spirit still and one wash still. The wash still is used first to distill the wort or wash (fermented barley, also part of beer making and has an alcohol volume of 6% - 9%) and makes the "low wines" (around 20% - 25% alcohol). The low wines are then distilled in the spirit still to produce the spirit which has a strength upwards of 60%, and is put into some nice oak casks to age. Or crap ones, I don't know. With only two stills, Oban is one of the smallest distilleries in Scottland. They're both pot stills, which is quite nice. With pot stills you have to distill in batches and they're much simpler and generally look a bit more old school. Column stills can distill continuously which isn't as quaint, and they tend to look a bit more industrial. Incidentally, the Dutch word for a pot still is "distilleerketel", which transliterates to distilling kettle. Bet you didn't know that. Unless you're one of the dutch people who reads this, then I guess you probably did.
I've got a 20cl bottle again and I paid 184.9 Norwegian Kroners for it. (That's £15.93, $24.25 US, 21.47 Euros or 11.57 Armenian drams. Good name for a currency, Armenia.) As with all six of the classic malts there is nothing to indicate that it's not coloured or filtered, which pretty much means it's both since natural colouring and non-chill filtering are good selling points and any marketers with a clue would print it on the label. It's bottled at 43%, like several of the other in the classic malt collection, which I still don't understand. Craft expression or volume? Make a decision, guys. If anyone knows why they choose 43% please comment, I'd love to find out. Hum-ti-tum, I think I'm done.
I need to go home and do some photography before I can do the next bit. Can you call it photography if you're using a telephone? Would it be telephography? If so you'd be taking a telephograph. Hmmm...
Packaging
Firstly I'd like to say I like quite like the name Oban. I'm not sure exactly why, but I rather enjoy saying it in my head. It's nice to say it out loud as well, I just tried. I'm not certain if the packaging section is the right place to talk about the name, but it's written on the label and doesn't really feature in any other part of the whisky experience. If you're not sure of the pronunciation, you can read it from this picture:
It's pronounced "Oban"
I like the packaging. It's a simple cardboard tube which is cardboard coloured. The logo just says the name in capital letters, and I like the 14 behind the little writing. Very nice, not too fancy and not too plain. Especially when you really begin to look at that nice, craggy coastal scene they've drawn on it. I'm not massively into whisky box art as you may have guessed, but I like this one. It doesn't draw attention to itself, but it's there to be examined if you're in the mood. Here's a couple of close ups:
Left side
Right side
This is my kind of art. It's not too flashy, but looks great and you can see there's a lot of detail. I like things you can really look at. I remember a blob of green and yellow plasticine on the ceiling of my classroom when I was six. I used to look at that for ages.
Smell in the bottle
I was quite amazed by how much was going on in the smell when I first opened this.
Appearance
A very pleasant looking drink, as most whisky is:
Pretty much the same as any other whisky with caramel
I found this whisky looks particularly appetizing. It has caramel colouring added (doesn't say it doesn't, so it does), but this is probably a decent example of why. It looks like something I'd want to try. It's pretty much amber. The pictures aren't a particularly accurate way for you to determine the colour. I was holding a piece of white paper behind it, but I discovered that if I changed the angle of the paper it changed the apparent colour of the whisky. The picture here is quite close though, I'm a pretty genius photographer.
Smell in the bottle
Opening
Cereally
Barley Sugar
Dried fruit soaked in brandy ready to go in the Christmas cake
Spices (clove? nutmeg?)
Kind of heady flowery (want to say honeysuckle)Smell in the bottle
Opening
Cereally
Barley Sugar
Dried fruit soaked in brandy ready to go in the Christmas cake
Spices (clove? nutmeg?)
Toffee
Vanilla
Fermented apple
Cinnamon
Soft brown sugar
Halfway through the bottle
I forgot to have a re-smelling from the bottle, which is a bit of a shame because the taste developed over a couple of weeks and the smell was probably different too. Ah well, maybe next time.
Neat
Nose
Initially just a fairly general whisky smell - needs to rest in the glass for a few minutes
Sugary cereal (Maybe Kellogg's Frosties)
Something a little earthy
Barley sugar sweets (I ordered some off Amazon, the taste I keep thinking is the soft sweet part of the taste of barley sugar sweets and that's what I tasted here.Barley sugar sweets also have a taste a lot like the orange flavouring used in sweets and I didn't taste that.)
Something floral which I wanted to call honey suckle, but really I have no idea. It's years since I smelled honey suckle, I don't think it grows here in Norway.
Vanilla
Alcohol (The alcohol seemed to mask the different smells somewhat more in the glass than it did in the bottle. I'll tell you why I think that is later.)
Dust
A bit briney
Very subtle wood smoke
Cleaning chemicals (not in a bad way)
Arrival
Initially just alcohol sting
Quite dry
Development
Dry, ashy
Wood smoke
Old chocolate that's gone a bit off
Finish
Between bitter and savoury, kind of a deep flavour
Old chocolate
Water - About 1 to 2 teaspoons seemed best
Nose
Fairly generic whisky smell at first - needs some time to open up
Toffee
Sweet vanilla
Quite fruity
Maybe honeysuckle
White grape juice
A hint of silage
A little more (still not more than 2 tsp) water brought out
Damp stone - minerally
Damp earth
Hint of smoke
Barley sugar sweets
Kind of want to say seaweed - something a bit briney, but minerally and rotting on a beach
Rain (I'm not sure how to describe this any better. It just smelled of rain, which I'm convinced does have a smell.)
A hint of something berry-like
Arrival
Sweetish - Toffee or fudge
Hints of dried fruits - raisins definitely, but there's more there
Woody
A little smokey (kind of a wood smoke, but only a little whiff of it.)
A little more water (still not more than 2 tsp) brought out:
Milk chocolate
Vanilla
A sweet, briny seafood taste, a bit like shrimps
A meatiness with the smoke, like salty grilled steak or burgers.
Development
Old chocolate
Something leafy that reminds me of privet
A little more water (still not more than 2 tsp) brought out
Dried fruits
Woody taste
Chocolate
Finish
Old chocolate, like when it's gone white but with a weird solventy thing going on too (kind of a distracting taste once I'd identified it)
When the bottle's been open for a week or so it turns to a very pleasant dark chocolate aftertaste
A little more water (still not more than 2 tsp) brought out
Iceberg lettuce (Yes, I know lettuce tastes a lot like water, but it doesn't taste exactly like it. It' much more lettucey)
A few extra comments
This was a rather nice little thing: The cork shows a kind of tide line where the whisky has come to. It's not really relevant in the review, as this could equally happen with any other whisky, but this cork showed it rather well.
Ever so slightly interesting
I'm working to the assumption that the bottom of the cork is the only part to have had contact with the whisky, and that it was water tight at the sides. Whisky tight I suppose. You can clearly see the line where the whisky has seeped into the cork. Imagine that as a slice of oak cask. The whisky seeps into the wood to a certain level, then seeps back out again bringing some wood flavours with it. You know that already.
I've never had a more chocolatey whiskey than this one and the chocolate flavour develops in a very interesting way after the bottle's opened. Unfortunately it starts out as a kind of old chocolate taste, which I wasn't too keen on. To me it's the taste of disappointment. When I was a kid we'd get lovely big chocolate eggs at Easter. I would eat about half and then try to make the rest last as long as possible. Usually I would forget about it and then find it around Christmas time. Imagine the expression on little ten year old David's face when he unwraps the delicious surprise only to find it's gone white and dusty looking. Clutching at the last straws of hope he has a taste; perhaps chocolate still tastes ok in this condition. But no, his dreams are crushed, life loses all colour and even the thought of a happy piglet seems meaningless. Still haunted by the experience years later David turns to drink. He starts writing a blog about drink, only to discover the same flavour in the drink he's reviewing. It's a tragic story indeed. Fortunately the chocolatey flavour develops over a few days, with rich milk chocolate in the development and very good dark chocolate in the aftertaste. David is delighted at such a pleasant change and organizes a small party to celebrate. He invites no one.
The taste at first was actually nice and had some complexity to it, but it did improve and become more complex after a day or two, suggesting a slightly poor quality maturation. Actually that's not fair, "slightly imperfect" is probably a better way to put it. Not to the extent of the Dalwhinnie 15, but still noticeable. Also, there was a lot more going on in the nose and the arrival than the finish, which as far as I know indicates a slightly less than perfect maturation. Don't let that put you off though, I've included it as a point of interest, not a criticism. The finish develops interestingly after you open the bottle.
I've never had a more chocolatey whiskey than this one and the chocolate flavour develops in a very interesting way after the bottle's opened. Unfortunately it starts out as a kind of old chocolate taste, which I wasn't too keen on. To me it's the taste of disappointment. When I was a kid we'd get lovely big chocolate eggs at Easter. I would eat about half and then try to make the rest last as long as possible. Usually I would forget about it and then find it around Christmas time. Imagine the expression on little ten year old David's face when he unwraps the delicious surprise only to find it's gone white and dusty looking. Clutching at the last straws of hope he has a taste; perhaps chocolate still tastes ok in this condition. But no, his dreams are crushed, life loses all colour and even the thought of a happy piglet seems meaningless. Still haunted by the experience years later David turns to drink. He starts writing a blog about drink, only to discover the same flavour in the drink he's reviewing. It's a tragic story indeed. Fortunately the chocolatey flavour develops over a few days, with rich milk chocolate in the development and very good dark chocolate in the aftertaste. David is delighted at such a pleasant change and organizes a small party to celebrate. He invites no one.
The taste at first was actually nice and had some complexity to it, but it did improve and become more complex after a day or two, suggesting a slightly poor quality maturation. Actually that's not fair, "slightly imperfect" is probably a better way to put it. Not to the extent of the Dalwhinnie 15, but still noticeable. Also, there was a lot more going on in the nose and the arrival than the finish, which as far as I know indicates a slightly less than perfect maturation. Don't let that put you off though, I've included it as a point of interest, not a criticism. The finish develops interestingly after you open the bottle.
Conclusion
It's a nice whisky. Very interesting and very chocolatey. Chocolate was a slightly odd flavour to find in whisky, especially in the old chocolate manifestation. The milk and dark chocolate flavours that developed later were very nice. I'm don't think I would have called it a cross between an island whisky and a highland whisky if I didn't know that it was situated in the west highlands. It does have some of the briney and smokey notes of an island whisky and it had fruity and flowery notes like a typical highland, but the smoke was very subtle. I'd suggest closer to two teaspoons of water, I wouldn't be too afraid of drowning it, but remember it's only 43% so don't add loads. Would I buy it again? Possibly. Right at this moment I'm thinking I wouldn't buy it just to drink, but it's been very nice to review it. It's more down to personal taste than anything else. As I've said with other whiskies I would certainly appreciate a bottle as a gift, but if I was buying then I'd choose something else. I've done this one and now I'd like to try some others. On the standard one to ten scale I'd say it's nice, interesting and a little unusual. Give it a try. At least go out and have a good look at the picture on the tube. If you have a friend who has a bottle you should try to get a taste of theirs before committing.
The future
I've already opened the Longrow with my app inventing Norwegian friend Mr. Tollaksen. It's good so far. Very smokey, very much not an Isaly malt. Interesting stuff. Keep checking back on a daily basis so you can be the first to read the review of that one, and in the mean time feel free to comment. I have a couple of ideas for other things to post about, like a beer tasting I went to, whiskies I tried over Christmas and the mushroom we found growing on my old friend Mr. Tiffen's kitchen wall.
No comments:
Post a Comment