I rather feel that I tend to over sell with my introductory paragraph and under deliver with the rest. I´m glad someone reads this though. It seems there are a lot of amazing foreigners reading, especially from the US, but also South Africa, China, Ukraine and at least two places I´ve never heard of. Welcome everyone. I hope you´ve been enjoying all these words I find in my brain. Now to the whisky.
Bit of an intro
Longrow Peated Whisky is distilled in the Campbeltown region and by Springbank. I have a review of their cask strength on here somewhere that has some pretty thorough information about the distillery, so have a look at that for more. I included links to Ralfy of Ralfystuff´s tour of the distillery. It´s well worth watching, and googling any whisky terms in it that you don´t understand. It'll be a very educational experience for you. A bit like school but without the systematic dismantling of your self esteem. I like Springbank; they have the best looking logo, the most traditional distilling methods, the kindest hearts and some of the best whisky there is. For example, you´ll notice in the video that they bottle by hand, even though buying a machine would cost them very little money. They could save quite a bit of money if they bought a machine, but then some local guy would be out of a job, so they keep bottling by hand. A very nice approach to business because they haven´t bought into the lie that "business is business", i.e. that it´s isolated from the rest of life and that the human consequences of business decisions are not the responsibility of the decision maker. Hats off to Springbank.
Longrow is the most heavily peated expression produced at Springbank, with the malt being dried over peat smoke for up to 48 hours. It´s double distilled, which leaves in a greater range of flavor compounds, since each distillation removes some of the lightest and heaviest molecules from the mixture. Triple distilling is pretty popular, and tends to give a more refined whisky, although in theory a less refined whisky would have a greater range of flavor compounds in it and therefore a more complex and interesting flavor. On the other hand a more refined whisky would potentially show subtleties that would be lost in a less refined one. Subtlety in a peated whisky isn´t really the point, which I suspect is why they use double distillation for this one. The whiskies produced under the name Springbank are two and a half times distilled and they also produce Hazelburn, which is triple distilled. I was about to say some stuff about the direct fired still, but I´ll hold onto that until the "A few extra comments" part.
The version I have is the one currently listed here on Springbank´s website. I gather there was once a ten year old expression and what they called CV, which was a slightly posher version. Apparently CV once stood for something like Chairman´s Vat and was a nod to the tradition of the chairman of the distillery having a particularly good vat of whisky to offer to guests. Something like that anyway. I remember hearing that CV could stand for anything really, and it´s not very likely that the chairman had a vat of whisky in his office. It would´t be conducive to a productive working environment. In reality CV was just something to call an expression of whisky. Longrow Peated is part of a revamped range, and according to masterofmalt.com it´s pretty much CV in a new bottle and with a new name.
Interestingly the length of the maturation is not given. With a ten year old whisky you know that the youngest whisky in the mix is ten years old. With CV you know that the youngest in the mix is no younger that three years or they couldn't legally call it whisky, but with no age statement you have no idea how old it actually is. A reviewer on masterofmalt.com apparently emailed the distillery and was told it's a mix of 7, 10 and 14 year old whiskies. An age statement would legally have to say seven years old and wouldn't sound appealing to many malt drinkers, so CV is a better name from that angle. After all Bell's is aged for eight. I might post something about age statements soon, it's something of a hot topic among scotch drinkers at the moment.
It´s bottled at 46%, which is the usual minimum for a craft whisky. By craft whisky I mean one that´s more about quality than mass market appeal, although it kind of suggests it´s been sculpted out of clay. 46% still has plenty of flavor. Stronger whiskies are often cask strength, where it´s not watered down at all before bottling. We´ve been over this before. More alcohol = more flavor. More water = more profit.
Not really sure what else to say. No caramel added, no chill filtration and therefore more honest whisky experience. I bought this about a year ago on a trip to visit my old friend Mr. Tiffen and I don't recall the exact price. I´ll have a look for the receipt, I´m sure I kept it somewhere. It was about 35 quid I think. That´s pounds sterling, for all you lovely foreign folk. In kroners today that's only 413 which is a bit of a bargain, although at the time it was even better. (That's $54.36, 49.08 euros, or 834.92 Maldivian Rufiyaa.) I looked for the receipt but didn't find it. I'll edit this if it shows up.
Packaging
I have to say the packaging is probably my least favourite thing about this whisky. I've mentioned before that I prefer darker packaging and this is by no means dark packaging. The box is pretty flimsy and is clearly meant to display the bottle rather than protect it. You can see in the picture that mine got a bit battered about in my case on the way back to Norway. That's all fine, and obviously the packaging is not expensive so the money's mostly gone on whisky and not a box which is good. I still don't like the look of it though, especially when you compare it to the springbank design. I feel it has a bit of girliness to it, a little like the Dalwhinnie packaging.
Bit of an intro
Longrow Peated Whisky is distilled in the Campbeltown region and by Springbank. I have a review of their cask strength on here somewhere that has some pretty thorough information about the distillery, so have a look at that for more. I included links to Ralfy of Ralfystuff´s tour of the distillery. It´s well worth watching, and googling any whisky terms in it that you don´t understand. It'll be a very educational experience for you. A bit like school but without the systematic dismantling of your self esteem. I like Springbank; they have the best looking logo, the most traditional distilling methods, the kindest hearts and some of the best whisky there is. For example, you´ll notice in the video that they bottle by hand, even though buying a machine would cost them very little money. They could save quite a bit of money if they bought a machine, but then some local guy would be out of a job, so they keep bottling by hand. A very nice approach to business because they haven´t bought into the lie that "business is business", i.e. that it´s isolated from the rest of life and that the human consequences of business decisions are not the responsibility of the decision maker. Hats off to Springbank.
Longrow is the most heavily peated expression produced at Springbank, with the malt being dried over peat smoke for up to 48 hours. It´s double distilled, which leaves in a greater range of flavor compounds, since each distillation removes some of the lightest and heaviest molecules from the mixture. Triple distilling is pretty popular, and tends to give a more refined whisky, although in theory a less refined whisky would have a greater range of flavor compounds in it and therefore a more complex and interesting flavor. On the other hand a more refined whisky would potentially show subtleties that would be lost in a less refined one. Subtlety in a peated whisky isn´t really the point, which I suspect is why they use double distillation for this one. The whiskies produced under the name Springbank are two and a half times distilled and they also produce Hazelburn, which is triple distilled. I was about to say some stuff about the direct fired still, but I´ll hold onto that until the "A few extra comments" part.
The version I have is the one currently listed here on Springbank´s website. I gather there was once a ten year old expression and what they called CV, which was a slightly posher version. Apparently CV once stood for something like Chairman´s Vat and was a nod to the tradition of the chairman of the distillery having a particularly good vat of whisky to offer to guests. Something like that anyway. I remember hearing that CV could stand for anything really, and it´s not very likely that the chairman had a vat of whisky in his office. It would´t be conducive to a productive working environment. In reality CV was just something to call an expression of whisky. Longrow Peated is part of a revamped range, and according to masterofmalt.com it´s pretty much CV in a new bottle and with a new name.
Interestingly the length of the maturation is not given. With a ten year old whisky you know that the youngest whisky in the mix is ten years old. With CV you know that the youngest in the mix is no younger that three years or they couldn't legally call it whisky, but with no age statement you have no idea how old it actually is. A reviewer on masterofmalt.com apparently emailed the distillery and was told it's a mix of 7, 10 and 14 year old whiskies. An age statement would legally have to say seven years old and wouldn't sound appealing to many malt drinkers, so CV is a better name from that angle. After all Bell's is aged for eight. I might post something about age statements soon, it's something of a hot topic among scotch drinkers at the moment.
It´s bottled at 46%, which is the usual minimum for a craft whisky. By craft whisky I mean one that´s more about quality than mass market appeal, although it kind of suggests it´s been sculpted out of clay. 46% still has plenty of flavor. Stronger whiskies are often cask strength, where it´s not watered down at all before bottling. We´ve been over this before. More alcohol = more flavor. More water = more profit.
Not really sure what else to say. No caramel added, no chill filtration and therefore more honest whisky experience. I bought this about a year ago on a trip to visit my old friend Mr. Tiffen and I don't recall the exact price. I´ll have a look for the receipt, I´m sure I kept it somewhere. It was about 35 quid I think. That´s pounds sterling, for all you lovely foreign folk. In kroners today that's only 413 which is a bit of a bargain, although at the time it was even better. (That's $54.36, 49.08 euros, or 834.92 Maldivian Rufiyaa.) I looked for the receipt but didn't find it. I'll edit this if it shows up.
Packaging
I have to say the packaging is probably my least favourite thing about this whisky. I've mentioned before that I prefer darker packaging and this is by no means dark packaging. The box is pretty flimsy and is clearly meant to display the bottle rather than protect it. You can see in the picture that mine got a bit battered about in my case on the way back to Norway. That's all fine, and obviously the packaging is not expensive so the money's mostly gone on whisky and not a box which is good. I still don't like the look of it though, especially when you compare it to the springbank design. I feel it has a bit of girliness to it, a little like the Dalwhinnie packaging.
At least it tastes good
To be fair there are aspects of the packaging that I like. The shape of the bottle is quite nice for example and it has the name of the distillery written on it in rather a pleasing way.
Rather pleasing
The approach of letting the whisky speak for itself is very good, especially with a whisky that really does speak for itself. The label on the bottle is papery rather than glossy which I kind of liked. It feels a bit more hand made. As far as I know it's bottled by hand, but I don't think it's labeled by hand as well. Possibly they have a hand operated labeling machine, but the bottle has a notch on it that holds it straight as the label is being applied by a machine. It could be a steam powered machine for all I know. That'd be awesome.
Evidence of machine labeling. Should be exactly opposite the label on the front.
I'm still on the label. I like the shiny copper colour of the lettering, although I think there's a bit too much lettering to create a strong visual impression. It wouldn't grab my attention on a shelf in the government controlled alcohol dispensary. It's ok though, and you can't taste the packaging. Well you could I suppose, but you'd be weird if you did.
I didn't really capture the shininess
The blurb on the box says more about the distillery than anything else, although it doesn mention the 48 hour drying time, double distillation and the lack of caramel colouring and chill filtration. The label on the bottle adds that less than 100 casks are filled each year which makes it a "hidden gem worth seeking out". They also warm about the scotch mist which not all whiskies produce on account of chill filtering. I imagine it would be worrying if you weren't expecting it. It's important to note that the whisky itself is the subject of the blurb, not how pretty the scenery is around the distillery. Even when talking about the distillery they point out a bit of their history and their uniqueness in the scotch whisky market, rather than trying to conjour up some romanticized idea of life in rural Scotland, which to me suggests that they think you'd buy this on it's own merit and that if you know your stuff you probably don't need much convincing to part with your cash.
Smell in the bottle
Opening
Immediately peat smoke, but very much not from Islay. A kind of earthier peat I think.
Bit salty
Kind of meaty, a bit like ham.
Vegetal
Minerally
Bit of apple
Not as medicinal as Islay whiskies tend to be with a noticable lack of iodine.
Possibly sage?
Kind of old chocolate or cheap chocolate, but it might have been vanilla in a form I'm not so familiar with.
A tiny bit medicinal, but really not like Islay. Imagine Laphroaig 10 year old. It's not like that.
Dry smokiness
A bit of fruity sweetness
Something floral
Near the end
Cider and pretty good cider at that. Thatcher's do a cider made entirely from cox's apples and that's what it smelled of.
Earthy stone, like sandstone buried in earth. It brought up a memory of digging in the back yard when I was less than eight years old.
Butterscotch sweets.
Appearance
Yellowish, the same as most other whiskies. In the right light it has a rather pleasing copper tone to it, which is possibly why they chose the colour they did for the lettering on the label. Mostly I think it has a kind of vegetable yellowness, a bit like the water if you steam some kale for slightly too long. Amber -1 maybe.
What were you expecting?
Note that no caramel colouring is added. This colour is entirely from the spirit and the barrel, and since the spirit is most likely colourless when it goes in, it's probably all barrel. I guess it's mostly caused by tannin, but I don't really know. Hence my use of the word "guess".
Neat
Nose
Rainy mineral smell, which seems to be quite characteristic of the Springbank distillery.
At first quite coastal smelling, but not with the seaweed element you get in Islay malts. More minerally pebble beach kind of smell, with sea smell.
The saltiness faded away after a few minutes in the glass.
Fresh mint I think, but faint
Herbs in general, maybe with fresh corriander
Classroom chalk/gypsum
Barley sugar sweets with a kind of powdery quality to the smell. I recently bought some barley sugars and they came in a tin with some power to stop them sticking together and it was a lot like that.
Arrival
Salt
Sweet
Alcohol sting
Apple juice but quite tart
Rain and rocks, typical of springbank
Peat, but not smokey. more like a bag of peat you'd buy at a garden centre if you were so inclined.
Very faint medicinal flavour.
Hint of silage
Vanilla
Toffee
Sandy soil like you sometimes get in a bag of carrots that still have the soil on. Possibly the carrots too.
The arrival softened after a few days
Development
Herbs
Spices, some kind of powdered spice, perhaps ground corriander but not really sure
Maybe a bit cereally
Finish
I expected a bit more here.
It had a kind of creamy vanilla thing going on.
Touch of chocolate maybe
Tea
Not very long
In my notes I wrote "Hopefully some water will open up the finish."
Water - 2 tsp seemed about right
Nose
Immediately meatier when the water is added, pork I think, a bit like pulled pork
Sweetness more pronounced and quite rich a bit like those really sticky dates you get with the plastic twig in the box.
Smoke, but really not very much considering its 48 hour smoking time.
More minerally.
Milk chocolate.
Cooking apples (just apple smell, but quite tart)
Dryness, like old woods make. Kind of musty dusty sort of thing.
Arrival
Quite soft arrival and quite short and getting sweeter with time once the water is added
Sweet
Minerally
Rain and rocks
A bit earthy
Gentle apple this time
Herbs of some sort
Development
Again getting sweeter with time once you add water
Minerally
Faint, dry woodsmoke
Vanilla
A bit biscuity
Dark chocolate
Spices in a fairly general way
Possibly dark roast coffee which is an unusual taste for a whisky if that's what it was. I wasn't very sure about it as it was only a fleeting sensation.
Finish
Swiss chocolate. (That kind that has a slight nutty taste to it. I think it's Swiss, but I won't be upset if it turns out to be Belgian.) Not unlike that old chocolate taste, but not so old. Chocolate is what I'm essentially saying here.
Hints of herbs in general
Pond water (similar to the rain taste but a a little more muddy perhaps)
Hint of charcoal
My notes said "Springbank distillery has something hard about it". It's not an objective tasting note at all, but it was something I experienced. There is a certain stoney, outdoor, minerally theme to the flavours in the whiskies I've tried from springbank, but it brings to mind certain images of rocks, cliffs, exposed stoney beaches and bad weather. I thought it would be worth including that observation, as the experience of whisky is far from a collection of objective flavours and smells. This note was about what I perceive the character of the whisky to be. Not the smell, not the taste, not the form, but it's personality. This is of course entirely in my imagination, but since my imagination is part of my experience in general, it's part of my whisky experience. In my imagination this whisky is possibly a bit like Ned Stark from Game of Thrones. That's pretty meaningless. Compare this to lagavulin for example. Lagavulin is warm and cozy like you're inside by the fire on a stormy night, brooding in a tall wing backed armchair. Longrow is like your out in the storm, but it's daytime and you've got the right clothes for it. Still kind of meaningless.
Other shapes of glasses
I tried this whisky in a couple of different shapes of glasses when drinking it with friends. There was a noticable difference with each one which I thought was interesting enough to include.
Wide bottomed glencairn on a stick kind of shape
I used this glass when drinking with my stocky farming carpenter friend Mr Bjelland. If he was in Lord of the Rings he's be a dwarf I think. It was pretty much a distorted glencairn. Wider at the bottom than the rim to allow nice smelly vapours to be more concentrated, but with a wider bottom and slightly narrower top to a typical glencairn. This in theory would exaggerate the aroma concentrating effect of the glencairn style.
Like a glencairn only more so
In general it was earthier, with more rotted vegetation kind of notes. Here's the tasting notes:
Neat
Nose
Earth
Compost
Silage
Damp earthy peat
Sparklers (yes, firework type sparklers)
Vanilla
Pine needles
Banana (kind of unripe banana)
Pear drops
Arrival
Mostly alcohol
Development
Not much
Finish
Old chocolate
Water - 2 tsp
Nose
Much sweeter smelling immediately
Angelica
Rain on gritstone
Vegetables in earth
Arrival
Sweetish
Boiled sweets
Development
Earthy
Old chocolate
Finish
Apple
Cereal
As you can see it was quite different, especially the nose, which I think is to be expected.
Round tumbler type glass
The other glass I used to drink Longrow was a round tumbler type thing when drinking with my tall Norwegian friend Mr. Rake. Not unlike a particularly round wineglass without the stick. Not really designed for collecting smells and directing them up your snout, but probably better at it than a straight sided tumbler.
Not like a glencairn.
You can see that the rim tapers in slightly which in theory should collect the vapours together slightly more than a straight sided tumbler. This one was the smokiest Longrow has tasted. Interestingly, Ten year old Laphroaig also tasted smokier from a tumbler and more medicinal from a glencairn.
Neat
Nose
Gentle smoke, the most prominent it's been so far
Earthy peat
Caramel/toffee
Faint aniseed
Sweet smokiness
Fruity, flowery like perfume
Herbal
Minerally
Arrival
Dryish smoke
Development
Didn't make a note. I was hanging out with a friend and that takes priority. If drink becomes a priority over friends (or even if tasting notes become a priority over friends) you have a problem and should either get in touch with Alcoholics Anonymous or take your head out of your arse, depending on which it is. (If it's drink call AA. If it's tasting notes you're probably a hipster of some sort. I'm not sure if that's ok or not.)
Finish
Long with a bitter note to it
Old chocolate
Water - 2 tsp
Nose
Immediately more mineral
Cured ham
Tropical fruit, maybe peach
Very faint medicine
Vanilla
Arrival
A bit ale like, which I'm surprised you don't find in more whiskies, what with them being essentially distilled ale without the hops.
Development
Sweetish
Quite a lot of vanilla
Bit chocolatey (swiss rather than old this time)
Finish
Dry
Smokey
I put in my notes that the smoke is not as warm and cozy as an Islay, as I've already mentioned several times, and again that the minerally notes give a hard, outdoor character.
As you can see I didn't make particularly extensive notes. I'd be interested to find out why a tumbler gives a smokier taste in two whiskies that I've tried it with. Something to do with the size of the molecules of the aroma compounds I expect.
A few extra comments
What an interesting whisky that was. As promised here's something about the direct fired stills at Springbank distillery: I like them. In theory they should give a more complex flavour since the heat will not be as evenly distributed or precisely controlled as in a still heated with steam coils. Proteins and sugars react when heated to form a huge range of flavour compounds in something called the Maillard reaction. The greater the range of temperatures the greater the range of speeds at which the reaction can take place and the greater the range of sizes of molecules involved and therefore (as far as I'm aware) the greater the range of flavour compounds produced. This should lead to a complex range of flavours in the whisky and it's true. I wrote down everything I was able to identify, but there were still things in there that I couldn't put my finger on.
Interesting to note is the difference in the peaty flavours between Longrow Peated and the smokey whiskies from Islay. The peat used at the Springbank distillery is sourced from a different place to that used for the Islay whiskies and therefore has a different flavour due to the different types of moss and lichen growing in the area 5000 years ago. The Longrow peat seemed a bit more earthy and wood smokey to me and much less medicinal. Apparently the medicinal flavours come from lichens, so I guess there were fewer lichens growing at wherever it is the Longrow peat comes from.
The stoney minerally character seems to be typical of Springbank, but it may be a wider Campbeltown thing. I'll have to try something from Glen Scotia or Kilkerran and see.
Trying the same whisky from different shaped glasses was fascinating. I found the glass that was essentially a wider bottomed glencairn particularly fascinating, since the basic shape of the glass is much the same as the one I would normally use. The only difference being the ratio of the surface area of the liquid to the size of the opening at the top of the glass. It produced a marked difference in the smells I experience. I'd recommend giving it a try. It's also worth noting that a tumbler seems to produce a smokier sensation. Now if I have a whisky that I think would be nicer if it was just a wee bit smokier I can simply pour it into a tumbler.
Conclusion
A very pleasant whisky, even if the packaging isn't the best ever. It was fairly difficult to find much out about it, but it's quality speaks for itself. The range of flavours is pretty big, even if you have to use different shaped glasses to get at them all. Actually the huge difference made by something as simple as the shape of the glass to me makes this a very interesting whisky indeed. I'd be delighted to have a crack at one of the other expressions.
It wasn't at all as smokey as I'd expected, especially since I read somewhere online that the phenol count is about the same as Ardbeg at 55 parts per million, and Ardbeg is one of the smokiest there is. You really don't get the same phenolic blast as you do with some of the Islay malts. The different character of the smoke flavours compared to whiskies that I'm more familiar with was another point of interest for me. The earthier manifestation of the peat was very pleasant and again very interesting. It's possibly not a beginner's whisky due to the less common and recognizable flavours such as rocks, but there's no reason a beginner wouldn't enjoy it. Certainly a bit more challenging than some if you're going for tasting rather than simply enjoying though.
Would I buy it again? Probably, but not for a while. It's a great quality whisky, but the attraction of this one was how interesting it was to investigate and now that it's done I'd rather explore a different expression of Longrow than do the same one again. I would definitely recommend it to anyone fairly familiar with whiskies, especially peated ones, who is looking for something different but only a little different. My first whisky was Talisker, so for me at first lighter whiskies like Glenfiddich and Glenmorangie tasted a little bland and uninteresting so I didn't get into tasting properly for quite a while after I started enjoying scotch. This could be a good one to start broadening your whisky horizons if you're in a similar situation. On the standard one to ten scale I'd say it's one of the most interesting whiskies I've tasted in a while. First person to comment and with the number of times I used the word "interesting" in this post wins a small amount of self satisfaction.
Well, that's about it til next time. Thanks for reading, I appreciate it a lot. Like a lion would appreciate strangers reading his blog, or how a retired welder would appreciate people reading his. Next whisky review will be Aberlour A'Bunadh. I've been looking forward to opening that for ages, and my friend and fellow ex-patriot Mr. Lovell asked me to notify him when I do. There might be some other stuff before then though, I've got all kinds of notes piling up. Make sure you tell your friends and feel free to leave a comment, it'd make me feel special.
Great review!
ReplyDeleteThanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to read and comment. You're the first person to comment who I don't know, which means you win a small amount of self satisfaction. I hope you enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteI am a beginner when it comes to scotch. I'm a big fan of peated whiskies and was interested in branching out into Campbeltown whiskies. The guy at the liquor store recommended this so I jumped on it.
ReplyDeleteI only had a little bit last night but I really enjoyed it. I don't have much of a vocabulary yet so it's difficult to differentiate it from my other favorites (Laphroaig 10, Ardbeg Uigadaeil), but it's definitely different.
Thanks for the review!
Sorry I didn't reply sonner, I only just saw your comment. Maybe there's a notification button I need to turn on or something. Longrow is quite different from Islay whiskies. I think the main thing might be the source of the peat. I gather the moss used on Islay had a relatively high lichen content 5000 or so years ago giving it that medicinal flavour. Not certain if it's true but I read it somewhere so I believe it. Glad you liked the review and thanks for commenting, it encourages me to keep writing.
ReplyDelete