Wednesday, April 22, 2009

On to important things...

I did a little blind taste test comparo, pitting single malt Macallan 12 against scotch blend Chivas Regal 12. Base offering for each label, with two well respected brands. Like many, I've always assumed that the single malt is typically superior to the blend, but felt the need to test my assumptions.

In order to conduct the comparison, Strawberry Girl was nice enough to set up two snifters for me, pouring the scotch straight. Each got a unique "marker" that went around the stem so that she could differentiate which was which.

1) The snifter with the clover marker around the stem.

Immediately struck by the color differential. Both Macallan and Chivas are highland whiskeys, so I expected a similar golden hue, but this snifter has a much deeper tint, more honey than gold.

The nose brings a strong hint of citrus and sherry. As I try to figure out which is which, I've got my nose down in that glass like Monte in his dog bowl. As I sniff away and wash the scotch across the palette, the sherry finish gets more noticeable.

The whiskey is very balanced and easy drinking, without an overpowering nose or afterburn. Warm but not an inferno in the chest.

I likey.

2) The snifter with the lamb marker.

This is the lighter tinted scotch, which I naturally expect to have a thinner taste. Not so.

I find this scotch to be a bit harder to pin down in terms of flavors. First off, I find the finish on this whiskey to be very dry. I'm smacking my tongue against the roof of my mouth after each sip as if I'm trying to dislodge a stuck piece of popcorn skin. I pick up a hint of anis. But what I keep noticing is a smokiness to the nose and the flavor. Bourbon comes out of charred oak barrels, but I don't know about the scotch. It tastes like the whiskey might have come off the 'que, not the barrel. In the finish there is a definite chocolate flavor, maybe some berry too.

Turns out, when it came to guessing, I actually got it wrong.

I presumed the whiskey with the deeper hue was the Chivas, since it was a blend and might have some lowland whiskeys mixed in with the Speyside.

Turns out the deeper hue was the Macallan, and I should've known it by the sherry finish, since the dang bottle says that it comes out of sherry barrels.

Anyway, the Macallan was an easier drinking whiskey for me, and probably "tastier," which as we all know, is the most objective measure out there. At first, since I had my whiskeys reversed, I thought I'd opted for the blend, but not so.

But in retrospect, I am actually surprised by how much I enjoyed the blend. While it's not a flavor I'm as comfortable with as the Macallan, it's smokiness is unique and intriguing. I'm going to spend a little more time with this litre, and see how it grows on me.

4 comments:

SheaHeyKid said...

Two comments. First, Macallan 12 is surprisingly darker in hue than you might expect from other 10 or 12 year single malts. That said, I've seen that the Mac 12 can have a range of hues; I've had bottles that are lighter or darker. The 15 is the lightest in appearance, with the 18 in between.

Second, too bad you don't live in Boston or you could attend this event. Although i suppose you could attend the one in NY in Sept.

Fredo said...

Wow. That looks horrible. Just horrible.

SheaHeyKid said...

Particularly compelling is that the monstrous list is identified as a Partial pour list.

Fredo said...

Well, I have been needing to get up to Boston on business...

AddThis

Bookmark and Share

Always sniffing for the truth

Always sniffing for the truth

Blog Archive