Sorry for saying "let's rock the party". I feel I've rather lowered the tone with that.
Bit of an Intro
Cragganmore, as I said in that first paragraph up there, is from Speyside. It's made by the dreaded Diageo (who aren't that dreaded, they just have a different approach and actually make some pretty fine whisky) and is of course one of the six classic malts. Interestingly the six classic malts were launched in 1988 by United Distillers and Vintners before Diageo existed. My friend and former housemate Mr. Miles once had a gift pack containing small bottles of all six which I think is a rather nice thing as you get to taste a wide range of very different whiskies. Probably a great way of introducing someone to whisky too. There's a bit of discussion sometimes about exactly what is an appropriate beginner's single malt, and many of the suggestions are to my mind rather bland. The assumption seems to be that people who haven't tasted whisky before will invariable enjoy a light and fruity one and will not enjoy peat. To me it makes no sense to assume that, and I reckon introducing someone to whisky is more about introducing them to the concept of tasting than trying to guess what flavours they will like. So either a whisky with several easily recognizable flavours, or a range of different whiskies would be the way to go. A gift pack of very different whiskies from around Scotland would be ideal!
An interesting point about the six classic malts is that the regions they represent are not quite the usual regions. The usual ones are Highland, Lowland, Speyside, Islay, Campeltown, and the subregion of islands other than Islay. Campeltown whisky production is now much lower than it was in the past and it now only has three still working distilleries. Diageo don't own any of them which is probably why they've ignored the whole region. The lowlands only has four working distilleries left now, but one of them is owned by Diageo so it's been included as a region. They're also created their own region of Western Highlands to draw a distinction between Oban and Dalwhinnie. I'm not really sure if it's allowed to make up your own regions, but since they were all made up by whisky blenders to help train young whisky blenders not all that long ago I suppose it's not that big of a deal. Weirdly most of what non-Scots think is Scottish culture was invented by non-Scots relatively recently. Bit rude really.
The distillery itself is in Ballindalloch, a village in Banfshire. John Smith who founded it chose that location because it was conveniently close to a decent water source (the Craggan Burn) and good transport (the Strathspey Railway which is now disused. Apparently you can walk along it if you're into that. They call it the Seyside Way.) He'd already managed the Macallan, Glenlivet, Glenfarclas and Wishaw distilleries, so he knew what he was doing. The Craggan Burn flows down a hill called the Craggan More hill, hence the name. As with every single name of anything at all in Scotland it's derived from old Gaelic. The Gaelic words are "craegan mรณr" which means "big rock". Very imaginative. Apologies to the wonderful Scots, not everything is derived from Gaelic. "Shortbread" for example is derived from Latin. Probably. How would I know?
The stills at Cragganmore have an unusual and unique shape, being quite short with a flat top. It's supposed to affect the taste and aroma in some way, although I have no idea exactly how. I assume it's to do with the temperature throughout the still and how and where things condense, which in theory could make huge differences to the flavour. Whisky is a mixture of water, alcohol and a whole lot of nice flavour compounds, and the different taste and smell combinations you get are down to different ratios of the different compounds involved. Anything that changes the ratios of the flavour compounds even a little will affect the overall character of the whisky, which is why Laphroaig create exact replicas of the still right down to the dents when one wears out. I'd be inerested to find out exactly how the shape of Cragganmore's still affects things, but it's probably very complicated.
I think it's won an award or two and in the 1920's it was voted the finest malt for blending and was titled "A1". Personally I think it was considered good for blending because it has an awesome aroma but the flavour leaves a little to be desired. Add a bit of something with great flavour and not much aroma and the two would cover each other's weaknesses.
I'm working my way through small bottles of each of the six classic malts as a way of buying six different whiskies for less than three thousand kroners. This one's 20cl. It cost me 154.9 kr (£15.40, $26.01, €19.03), which is rather a lot for a small bottle but this is Norway afterall. No idea about the US, or any other European countries, but I've seen this same bottle for sale on a British website for £13.75. It's bottled at 40%, which isn't ideal, but also doesn't seem to be a problem as you'll see later. It has caramel colouring added for a more consistent product and is chill filtered (quite heavily, I hear) which is rather a shame. I do notice a greater complexity with non-chill filtered whiskies now. I still don't think I taste the caramel colouring, but it would be nice to see the true colour of the whisky. I might have linked to this before, but Ralfy the mighty genius of ralfy.com has a very interesting and informative video about caramel. Click the link and watch it, but don't get distracted by all his other awesome videos. I know it's easy to do, but you need to read the rest of this review.
Interesting, wasn't it? On with the review.
Packaging
Feast your eyes on this:
Can't say it's the most appealing ever
The packaging certainly doesn't put me off, but it's not a style I find particularly appealing, which seems harsh to say because it is rather nice, I just wouldn't keep it as an ornament like I would with some. For me the more Celtic/Lord of the Rings the more likely it is to catch my eye. I find darker packaging tends to look a bit nicer too. I think the lighter coloured packaging suggests a lighter whisky and darker colours sugest a heavier, more powerfully flavoured whisky which would suit my personal taste better. (It's generally a bad idea to buy a whisky (or anything else) based on its packaging. I don't do that, but I do have opinions about what looks good). In this case that's true, it's a fairly light, floral and fruity affair and the packaging actually suits it quite well. There's a lovely detailed picture on the box and the logo is nice. I also like the way you can put four bottles in a row for a big version of the logo, which I once did in the tax free shop in the airport in Stavanger.
The box has a little description on the side that looks a bit like this:
AN ELEGANT,
SOPHISTICATE SPEYSIDE
WITH THE MOST COMPLEX
AROMA OF ANY MALT
ASTONISHINGLY FRAGRANT
WITH SWEETISH NOTES
AND A SMOKEY MALTINESS
ON THE FINISH
It's mostly quite accurate, but I'd debate whether it's really the most complex aroma of any malt. I reckon Springbank has a lot more going on, but then I'm thinking cask strength Springbank, and this is only 40%. Considering it's only 40% it does have a very complex aroma and a cask strength version would be very interesting to get your nose into, but you'd have to look for an independent bottling for that and sadly none are available in Norway, at least not with the name Cragganmore attached. Also, don't get your hopes up for the smokiness.
There's a longer blurb on the other side of the box, which is accurate, although (understandably) designed to promote the whisky as much as describe it. I won't go into detail, it's a bit of history and a description of the taste. I'm rather impressed that they've given so much detail about the taste. Often you get a load of stuff about moors and glens and lochs and whatever, but this one's all about the actual flavours that you'll taste in it. Much more useful information than the fact that there are some bushes and a patch of mud near the distillery. Well done for that, Cragganmore.
Forgot to mention this before, so this is a little edit. I like the cork. I've mentioned before that I like to be able to see the wood grain in the top of the cork and you can with this one. Not sure why I like it, I just do. Have a look.
Forgot to mention this before, so this is a little edit. I like the cork. I've mentioned before that I like to be able to see the wood grain in the top of the cork and you can with this one. Not sure why I like it, I just do. Have a look.
Hand carved by magic elves as far as I know.
Smell in the bottle
Opening - When I first opened it I distinctly smelled white wine, which was a bit of a surprise. After about ten or fifteen seconds it became more grainy and malty and smelled generally of whisky.
Later - Still quite like white wine each time you open the bottle when it's been corked up for a while.
Appearance
I read "gold" on one website. A website run Diageo or UDV or someone who makes money from this whisky. It's not gold, it's almost the same as any other whisky. I'd say amber -1 or 2 if anything. Pretty much standard whisky colour. It's probably a good thing that it's amber -1 rather than +1 because it shows that although they've put the evil brown dye in it, they haven't gone overboard.
Not much to say about it really.
I guess it doesn't take too much imagination to see it as golden coloured. Some whiskies are definitely more copper toned, or staw coloured or whatever. Let's call it "goldy, ambery, whisky colour". As we know, the colour tells you almost nothing about it.
Neat
Nose - Quite complex, caramel, caraway or fennel, flowers (I can't really pick out particular flower smells, I'll try to sniff a few this summer for practice), apple brandy (or apple eau-de-vie or whatever), rain on a dry stone wall (which is the kind of description to avoid if possible, it was like rain with a mineral quality), raisins, getting more fragrant as it settles down in the glass (by fragrant I mean the kind of light flowery and fruity kind of smells you tend to experience higher up in your nasal passages. At least I do)
Arrival - Apply brandy, quite sweet bit with a woody bitter quality as well
Development - The woodiness developed quickly and a tannin type dryness came with it, then a pleasant and fragrant liquorice type taste
Finish - the fragrant liquorice lingered, still a bit woody
Water - 1/2 to 1 tsp seems best
I found I only needed a little water. A whole teaspoon was a bit much and half a teaspoon didn't seem quite enough. I measured it all out accurately so it was exactly 35% alcohol one time, but that's way too much faffing about to do with every glass.
Nose - Floral, frutiy, seems like the smells are kind of spaced out a bit, sweet powdery kind of smell a bit like icing sugar but not quite, something a bit cologn-ish possibly sandalwood, a sweet more fragrant vanilla, supermarket apple juice, banana, some other kind of soft tropical type fruit, coconut, sea buckthorn (or at least something very like Edwin Jagger's sea buckthorn shaving soap), boiled sweets (first rhubarb and custard but once the bottle was open for a couple of days I noticed cola cubes and pineapple chunks), demarera sugar, frokost juice (breakfast juice for the non-Norwegians, a mix of apple orange and carrot juice sometimes with a bit of lime in), after the bottle had been open a few days I noticed fudge and white grape juice were quite prominent when they'd been absent at first (interesting since the smell in the bottle is quite like quite like white wine. This was definitely grape juice and didn't taste at all like the grapes had fermented)
Arrival - The first dram was sweet with a bit of a white wine quality but subsequent drams didn't have the wininess, a touch of the woody bitterness it had when it was neat, fragrant fruits (really more on the nose but you still smell them as you drink it),
Development - Bitterish savoury herbs, oak (not so distinctly oak after the first dram, but the woodiness was there the whole time and had a more nutty quality when the bottle had been open for a few days. It develops a pleasant mustiness as it lingers in the mouth), possibly barley sugar sweets (not had them for years, but I'll buy some when I'm in the UK next month), kind of a fennel type flavour but not quite any of the flavour in that family that I'm familiar with, sweet graininess, I think I got a hint of Caramac one time but it's years since I've had that too
Finish - Bit woody and liquoricey. Not very complex but more so when the bottle had been open a while. Then there's a faint smokiness to the bitter woody flavour, a hint of walnut, a drying nutshell/tannin sensation, a light black tea flavour, the flavour of the aftertaste of white grape juice (maybe white grape juice but not as sweet). As the aftertaste fades away I got sudden distinct flavour appearing. We're talking a good couple of minutes after I'd finished it. One was coconut, one was grape juice and another time it was black olives (salty and slightly metallic kind of taste).
A few more comments
To say this is only bottled at 40% alcohol it has a remarkably complex smell It doesn't have so much going on flavourwise as it does aromawise, which I think is why most of the 1.52 million liters produced each year is used in blending. One review I read recommended buying Johnny Walker Green Label Pure Malt instead because Cragganmore is an ingredient but is complemented and I assume rounded out in the flavour department by other malts. I'd love to try a cask strength, non-chill filtered version, I suspect I could sit and sniff at that for hours.
Interestingly, the range of marks given in other reviews was between 3.5 and 5 out of 5, while other whiskies I've reviewed have had a much larger variation. It's clearly much easier drinking than others and therefore might well make a good introductory whisky. It would certainly be a better choice than a cask strength Islay malt.
Conclusion
Not bad at all. Surprisingly complex for heavily chill filtered, 40% ABV whisky. I've been saying to my old friend Mr. Tiffen that it's nice, but I wouldn't buy a whole bottle and I've almost changed my mind on that but not quite. It's certainly growing on me and the way it's developing as more air gets in the bottle is pleasant and interesting, but I still wouldn't buy a whole bottle. If someone bought me one I'd appreciate it very much and enjoy every drop, but I still don't think I'd spend my own money on it. Possibly it's just not so much to my personal taste, but I do think it's lacking a little flavour, particularly in the finish but overall. Especially when you consider the complexity of the aroma. Apparently it's in the finish that chill-filtering really takes its toll, so I think this whisky could be much improved it they stopped doing that. Would I buy it again? I think I just covered that, but the answer is maybe. I might get a small bottle again, but I wouldn't go for a full size one. So marks out of ten on the standard scale: It's pretty good, not so much to my taste and would be better without the chill filtration, but an impressively complex aroma for %40. Worth trying, but I would say try it before spending the money on a bottle.
If you've enjoyed reading about my whisky experience, why not buy a bottle and have your own. Then tell every one you know to read my blog. Particularly your boss at work, I'm sure he or she would love it and possibly promote you for telling them about it. If you're self employed you could tell your cat or grandma or whatever. Subscribe too. I have no idea how, but I'd love a subscriber. Thanks for reading, especially if you're Scottish. I was a little impolite to you in this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment