Elemental Dice 1 – 3

There has been some Kickstarter projects under the name Elemental Dice. Backers get dice made of “pure” elements, well as pure as possible. When it comes to very valuable elements (like gold) the dice are just plated with pure gold.

The first 3 Elemental Dice projects contained 15 different elements:

I decided to weight them and present some stats:

Atomic
Number
ElementDensity
Real (g/cm)
Dice Weight (g)Density
Actual (g/cm)
Quote
12Mg1.73871.7198.33%
13Al2.7112.6999.46%
22Ti4.5184.3997.66%
26Fe7.874307.3293.02%
28Ni8.9358.5496.01%
29Cu8.96368.7998.09%
30Zi7.133256.1085.57%
45Rh14.4358.5459.34%Plated
46Pd11.9358.5471.81%Plated
47Ag10.494110.0195.42%
50Sn7.31297.0896.85%
74W19.37718.8097.40%
78Pt21.45348.3038.70%Plated
39Au19.25358.5444.39%Plated
83Bi9.78389.2894.86%

The side of the dice are 16mm. But there are cavities and roundings so their actual volume is slightly smaller.

The plated dice all weight 34-35g, and they probably have the same interior. Their weight is rather uninteresting.

When it comes to the “as pure as possible dice” most of them are more or less within the error margin of my 1g resolution scale. Iron (Fe) seems to be an alloy with something lighter and Zink (Zi) even more so.

As expected, Nickel (Ni) and Iron (Fe) seems to be magnetic.

Silver

Silver is a noble metal, but everyone who has owned silverware knows that it gets blackish after a while. After a while I had the feeling that my silver dice were the ones that had deteriorated the most since I received them. I happen to own silver dice: one solid and one that is just plated.

Today someone who should know told me: pure silver does not oxidize like that in air. I had a closer look at them, and decided to take a photo:

This has obviously been a gradual process. The one to the left is the oldest die and is plated. The left die actually is that much darker on its 6th face. Since they are next to each other you can see it is just not a light reflection phenomena. The dark corner on the right dice IS the left die being reflected though.

As you may be aware of, the 6th face is opposite to the AG-face. I have kept my Elemental Dice in the aluminium stands, with the 6th face downwards, in contact with the aluminium. As you can see on the 3rd face, the stain/oxidization is triangular, being larger on the side that has been more down in the aluminium stand. And on the 2nd face, you can see kind of a line where the dice has touched the aluminium.

I feel quite confident that there is a reaction between Al and Ag, and that the silver dice (or silver in general) should not be in contact with Aluminium at all.

Also, the little “holes” in the left (non-solid) die have turned yellowish. I don’t think is an optical phenomena because it has not happend (yet) to the solid silver dice, and there is nothing yellowish about Pt, Pa, Rh.

I am considering to paint my Aluminium stands with clear nail polish. Any other ideas?

Cleaning it!

There is a very simple way of removing the tarnish: link. It just requires sodium bicarbonate and some aluminium foil. The result is amazing, and it is fun do to chemistry in your own kitchen! Basically the Aluminium metal is sacrificed (oxidized) to restore the Silver atoms from Silver Oxide (and perhaps Silver Sulphide) to metal form.

Wishlist

There is a new set of Elemental Dice 4 with 10 new dice coming. The most missed ones after that would be:

  • Gallium – with a melting point of 29C it poses some practical problems, but including a mold for it would be cool
  • Uranium (depleted) – export restrictions and perhaps someone clever can turn U238 into Pu239

Camera HDR vs Graduated ND filter

Sometimes when I take photos I have a rather dark ground and a rather light sky. The consequence is that the sky gets overexposed and the ground underexposed. There are remedies. HDR means digitally improving the image, often after taking several images with different exposure times. A gradeduated ND filter is a physical camera filter that is half completely transparant, and half greyish.

I have a Sony RX100Va and I decided to compare the two methods. When using HDR this camera produces two images: the original unprocessed and the HDR-improved one. So the first two columns below are produced in one shot. The third column is a separate shot, with the filter attached to the camera.

If you open the images in a new window/tab you get higher resolution.

No HDR, No Graduated filterHDR, No Graduated filterNo HDR, Graduated filter ND8

There is obviously a difference, and in the end it depends on what you want. I find that the HDR-feature of my RX100Va camera is not as powerful as a Graduated ND8 filter. However the filter goes from light to darker, while HDR is obviously can do its job even if it is not an horizon in the image (for example if you photograph into a dark window but also want the exterior). If you look at the tree of the top-right GND image, it is very dark in the top. The HD-images have a bit more vivid green, I don’t know if that is an advantage.

To attach a filter to my RX100 I bought a MAGFILTER. So far I am very happy. The filter used above is a 52mm URTH Graduated ND8.

Note (to self if nothing else): In Swedish Graduated is translated into Graduerat or Halvtonat.

Whisky Blind Tasting Log

I got some sample bottles from a good friend, labeled 1-9. So I will blind taste them and I was recommended to start with 1,2,3,5,8 (thats close to a Fibonnaci siries but I am quite sure that is a coincidence). #1 is supposed to be cask strength. Try them head to head, randomly first.

#2 vs #5: #2 is darker. #5 has a quite classic aroma, not so little bourbon and vanilla in it. Neither very peated or sweet. #2 is fruitier and if one would be sherry matured it is this one. #5 is a softer, more malty thing. #2 is a bit more raw (or that is how I experience the probably-sherry-character). I taste #2, yes it is very good, in my taste, much vanilla and oak, and not so soft in the mouth as I first thought: it both has a kick and is soft (I add a little water). #5 has a strong sherry character, but what a sherry character (!), it is fruity like raisins or cherries, rich and deep, soft and malty. Very good. I really like #5 (although it has a hint of surprising bitterness after #2), but the only reason to not let #2 win would be if I were an absolute sherry hater, and I am not. Victory to #2.

#1 vs #3: Quite similar in color, #1 is cask strength and #3 is perhaps slightly more red. These are not so obvious on the nose, classic almost subtle with no immediately dominating aromas. #3 is a bit more of oak and vanilla, #1 a light, somewhat fruity maltiness. I taste #1 (first without water) and it is an unusual whisky, I find coffee and stout (or porter) in it. Oh, #3 is nice, an elegant mix of classic malt and sherry, with a nicely lingering red fruitiness. Back to #1, I remain at this roasted somewhat sweet flavour. #3 wins.

So that leaves us with #2 and #3 winning, and #1 and #5 losing. Lets play the losers and winners before trying #4.

#1 vs #5: Similar color. A bit more vanilla and oak in the aroma of #5, #1 is harder to put words to. I like #1 now, classic but yes still with some coffee and stout. #5 is more soft, with more vanilla. I really like #5 and it wins.

#2 vs #3: #2 is darker. I ended up with the two sherry inspired whiskies in the final. Well, this is weird, #2 is a bit chlorine, like a swimming pool, but in a good way! #3 has a more rough sherry cask character. #2 has to me a close to perfect sherry whisky flavour, soft and well balanced, without the sherry dominating too much. #3 is good, but a bit more rough and raw, and perhaps with a hint of that sulphur (which I don’t find a trace of in #2). Victory to #2.

So at this point we have #2 in the top, followed by #3, #5 and #1. I pour up #8 and find it as dark as #2, and yes, it has a definite high quality sherry character. Lets play it against #3.

#3 vs #8: #8 is darker, and it has more powerful aroma. I think #8 may be a bit peated. On the nose I would think that #3 is the more safe choice, and #8 is the joker. Lets taste the joker. Not bad, it is definitely a sherry matured whisky, a but juicy – like fresh and sour. #3 is more malty, a bit more conservative, I prefer #3.

#5 vs #8: #5 is paler. On the nose, #5 is a much lighter, maltier more classic speyside-like whisky. #8 is more spectacular sherry. #5, very good soft bourbon flavour. #8 is more powerful, and obviously more sherry. I prefer #5.

#1 vs #8: #1 is paler, and cask strength. On the nose #8 is rich, sherry, peated (perhaps) and complex. #1 is rather anonymous and subtle. #1 starts with a quite classic malt flavour, ending with this coffee roast again. These are a bit different in character, yet similar in quality. I am not a sherry fan (although top 2 of 5 went to sherry so far), and there is some I don’t like about #8 and I find #1 more enjoyable.

Final list (best to worst – and with the actual names written out):

  1. #2 Bunnahabhain 1986-2010 Carn Mor
  2. #3 Bunnahabhain 28 Untold Riches
  3. #5 Bunnahabhain 1989-2016 Samaroli
  4. #1 Bunnahabhain 1979-2000
  5. #8 Bunnahabhain 28 Statement

More tasting against other whiskies

(#2) Bunnahabhain 1986-2010 Carn Mor vs Bunnahabhain 21 Königsmann Oloroso: Königsmann is darker, and it has a very powerful fruity aroma. #2 is more subtle, balanced, classic malt here. Königsmann has a distinctive sherry character, rich sweet and complex. #2 is more balanced, not exactly subtle sherry but less dominant sherry. I prefer #2.

(#8) Bunnahabhain 28 Statement vs Bunnahabhain 21 Königsmann Oloroso: Königsmann is darker, with more fruit and bourbon (! – who would have thought) on the nose. #8 a bit dull here. First two very small sips, Königsmann feels like the richer more powerful whisky. #8 tastes a hint of peat, not so much sherry, and some unfortunate sulphur that I can’t forget or forgive. Königsmann has a more straight sherry influence, more fruity. It is actually very close, but I prefer Königsmann.

Bunnahabhain 1989-2016 Samaroli vs Redbreast 15: Redbreast a bit darker. Not so little similarity in aroma, Redbreast has a little bit more raw bourbon character and Bunnahabhain seems slightly softer, fruitier. Bunnahabhain has a rich and complex flavour that lingers long, a bit salty, a bit bitter, not so little bourbon and oak. Redbreast is more immediately and powerful sweet bourbon, which is very nice, but then it fades quicker. These two dont quite improve each other, Bunnahabhain seems a bit dull and Redbreast a bit chemical. Bunnahabhain is definitely a more complex and complete whisky, with some unfortunate bitterness. Redbreast is much more simple, but it does its bourbon extremely well. I prefer Redbreast, but I understand if connaiseurs and enthusiasts find that crazy.

Bunnahabhain 1989-2016 Samaroli vs Bushmills 16: Bushmills clearly darker. Bunnahabhain has a saltier and maltier aroma (you can feel the Islay/Sea-character, without the peat). Bushmills is sweeter, more chemical. I taste Bushmills, at first sweet, then sweeter, caramel, very soft. Bunnahabhain is saltier, maltier, and more bitter. Thinking I have very cheap and sweet preference, I lean towards Bushmills. I find Bunnahabhain more interesting than pleasant.

Bunnahabhain 1989-2016 Samaroli vs Springbank 15 Rum PC#629: Springbank much paler to the eye, but to the nose much rougher. Bunnahabhain rather soft and balanced, Springbank actually a bit sulphur. Springbank tastes fantastic though, no sulphur really, salty and with a hidden sweetness from the rum. Bunnahabhain has a more dominant sweetness more in the front. Bunnahabhain is more complex, lingering nicer, and I prefer it.

Bunnahabhain 28 Statement vs Glengoyne 21: Very similar color, both rather dark. Glengoyne has a light, almost wine-like aroma, definitely dominated by a soft sherry character but I thought I found bourbon in there too (and reading the bottle I am wrong). Bunnahabhain not so different, a bit saltier, rougher and in-your-face sherry, but not so much. Bunnahabahin is the more sweet. Tasting Glengoyne, it is sweet, caramel, some dark fruits, soft nice and round. Bunnahabhain is saltier, rougher, and an unfortunate hint of sulphur. I add little water to it. Tasting both again, I prefer Glengoyne.

Bunnahabhain 28 Statement vs Longrow 13 Red: Both rather dark and reddish, Longrow stronger but adding water makes not so much difference. Not so different on the nose, Longrow is a bit rougher and saltier, perhaps more sulphur, and its “red” casks have given less sweetness than the sherry casks of Bunnahabhain. I take a small sip of both, Longrow has too much sulphur, like old margarine, and Bunnahabhain has more complexity and and variety. Bunnahabhain wins.

Bergslagen Two Hearts vs Bunnahabhain 28 Statement: Very similar color. There is something thin, sweet, fruity and unnatural about Bergslagen, where Bunnahabhain smells of old quality. I taste Bergslagen, and it does have some quality: reasonable compexity, some softness, sweetness that is easy to enjoy and quite an absense of unwanted flavours. Bunnahabhain is saltier, but with some unfortunate sulphur. However, with that sulphur in mind, Bergslagen is not so flawless after all, and I think Bunnahabhain wins a narrow victory.

Bunnahabhain 28 Statement vs Johnny Walker 18: Similar color, JW probably slightly paler. JW quite light, something mint/hay about its aroma, otherwise classic scotch and perhaps a hint of peat. Bunnahabhain fresher, fruitier, saltier. I taste Johnny Walker, and it is flawlessly soft and balanced and it remains fairly long in the mouth. No bones. Bunnahabhain is much more sherry, and with that comes the sulphur: it has a lot of quality, but I am not forgiving with Sulphur. I prefer Johnny Walker 18.

Bunnahabhain 28 Untold Riches vs Glen Ord 18 (2019 Special Release): Much more color in Bunnahabhain. Glen Ord has a somewhat oily soily nose, but also fruity. Bunnahabhain strikes me as more sherry, those dark and red fruits. Glen Ord is classic, easy to enjoy, dry and a bit burnt in the mouth. Bunnahabhain has a more powerful aroma with an nice balance between sherry and malt. Glen Ord being a bit lighter, still has a comparable wealth of flavours. I have a simple flavour, not leaning towards sherry, and I prefer Glen Ord.

Bunnahabhain 28 Untold Riches vs Macallan 1993-2013: Very similar color. Macallan is lighter, more maltier, a bit more caramel and soft fruits on the nose. Bunnahabhain is saltier, rougher with more sherry. Macallan tastes good, very soft and balanced, slightly bitter. Bunnahabhain is a saltier more powerful experience. Back to Macallan, a bit dull, not quite up to this. Bunnahabhain wins.

Bunnahabhain 28 Untold Riches vs Highland Park 18 Viking Pride: Bunnahabhain perhaps slightly paler. Both has a bit salty and rough aroma, Highland Park a bit more oil, leather and peat (definitely), Bunnahabhain becomes a little in the shadow here, not quite matching HP in nose power. In the mouth the sherry of Bunnahabhain turns a bit sour, Highland park is very well balanced. I prefer Highland Park.

Bunnahabhain 28 Untold Riches vs Glenfiddich 15 Solera Reserve: Similar color. Bunnahabhain has a more rough and salty aroma, Glenfiddich fresher and fruitier and some maltyness comes through more as well. Tasting Glenfiddich it is very soft, honeylike, malty with some fruitiness. Bunnahabhain is more rare, exquisite in flavour, but also more of an aqcuired taste. I can really see myself and other people prefer Glenfiddich but there is something thin and somple to it side by side with this Bunnahabhain, so I will let Bunnahabhain win.

Bunnahabhain 1979-2000 vs Macallan 1993-2013: Bunnahabhain slightly paler. Macallan has a light fruitiness, with some maltiness. Bunnahabhain rougher, sweeter and saltier. Both have a sherry origin but quite different. Macallan is malty and nice, caramel, a bit nutty. Now there is much more raw sherry character to Bunnahabhain and I add water to it since it is cask strength. Bunnahabhain gets softer with water. Very similar quality, quite quite different character. Macallan is good but it is missing something to me, Bunnahabhain does its thing more straight. So it is a narrow victory to Bunnahabhain.

Wilesco D10 Review & Notes

I have owned a Wilesco D10 model steam engine since many years. Last days I gave it a few runs and I will write a few words about it.

In short conclusion I think it is great. It has a nicer cylinder than the budget D5/D6 models, and it is the real deal. I have never had any issues with my D10. However, there are some things that other more advanced models might have, that I actually miss.

Water Tray

This is actually my biggest complain or concern with the D10. There is a small red water tray around the cylinder. It gets full. Water ends up everywhere. The D24 has a removable tray to the side. The D20 has some solution. I believe perhaps a newer D10 also has some condense water tray. I like to run gentle and slowly and then the steam is probably less hot when it comes out, giving more condensed water than if running more aggressively.

Manometer

I am pretty careful and I find the idea that the boiler should explode quite creepy. Some models have a manometer so you can follow the pressure in the boiler. That is nice.

Steam Regulator

Some models come with a Steam Regulator so you can adjust the speed of the engine. That is nice – especially together with a manometer. What does work on the D10 is to move the burner slides slightly in and out, which changes the amount of oxygen for the fuel, and this quite quickly regulates the steam pressure.

Water Drain Valve

It is quite nice and civilized to have a water drain valve. My D10 does not. I either need to turn the machine upside down to empty it, or use a little hose to suck out the remaining water.

Reqired water level

This is with 4g Esbit fuel tablets.

Four fuel tablets: I would fill up the boiler to the top of the glass. However, I think operation is a bit to aggressive with 4 tablets and I avoid it.

Three fuel tablets: I have found that with three tablets, about half of the water in the boiler can boil away, so you should fill above half full. If you start with more water more fuel with will be wasted to just start up.

Two fuel tablets: For a gentle run two fuel tablets placed on top of each other in the middle, and slightly less than half full boiler, seems to be a good start. To me, this is the preferred mode of operation. The condense water is mostly contained in my little red tray.

One fuel tablet: For a very gentle run a single fuel tablet placed in the middle, and somewhat less than half full boiler works fine.

Starting up

When starting up it is easy to get a high pressure, and at first the steam pipes are cold and gets full of condensed water. So I start with the whistle open, and when steam starts coming out of it I close it and run the wheel manually until the engine starts.

Adjusting Speed

Despite there is not steam valve, moving the burner slider slightly changes the amount of oxygen available and you can quite control the power and speed of the engine.

Ranking Whisky (theory)

I have been tasting whisky for a while, systematically, in order to make a (personal) ranking based on my preference and experience. How do I do it?

Head to head

I decided based on experience that tasting one whisky and giving it a score does not work for me. I can like something better one day and worse another day. And what I have eaten or drunk before matters much. The popular 1-100 scale (where 1-60 is rarely used at all) is not what I want to use.

Also based on experience, I find it very hard to compare 4-5 whiskies at the same time. I simply find it hard to keep them all in my head and make any sense of it.

So I decided that when I test whisky, and rank whisky, I drink them two and two, head to head. This is not so strange, it happens in many sports that two teams or players compete against each other, and in the end there is a ranking.

Many ranking systems (tennis) promote participation and punish absence. You can not be #1 in Tennis if you have not played a game in two years. However, for my purposes, if I find 5cl of an excellent whisky, it goes to the top and it should remain in the top. It is not supposed to get punished because I am out of it.

So I developed a ranking system based on the above principles and findings.

A strong assumption

Lets say I have three whiskies: Perth, Dundee and Stirling (I will use made up names for examples). I have tested twice:

  • Perth beats Dundee
  • Dundee beats Stirling

Is it then possible to make a third tasting and find that

  • Stirling beats Perth?
  • Dundee beats Perth?

In sports this can obviously happen. But I have decided that for my purposes this will never happen. How do I know? I simply never test two whiskies that already have a decided ranking order.

It is not obvious that this is a good (true) assumption. However, it is an assumption that has worked good for me – perhaps better than I expected from the beginning. However I have been making separate ranking lists for peated and unpeated whiskies.

Example

Perth beats Dundee, and we have:

  1. Perth
  2. Dundee

Dundee beats Stirling, and we have

  1. Perth
  2. Dundee
  3. Stirling

Glasgow beats Stirling and it gets more complicated

  1. Perth
  2. Dundee
  3. Glasgow (could have been #1 or #2, but keep close to Stirling)
  4. Stirling

Glasgow beats Perth, and we have

  1. Glasgow
  2. Perth
  3. Dundee
  4. Stirling

Glasgow beats Edinburgh, and Edinburgh beats Stirling, and we have

  1. Glasgow
  2. Perth
  3. Edinburgh (could have been – and can become – #2 or #4 – but keep it in the middle for now)
  4. Dundee
  5. Stirling

In principle, this is all there is to it. If I get a new cheap blend I probably try it against Stirling. If it loses to Stirling it is now #6. If it wins to Stirling I compare it against a better whisky “hoping” it will lose, and I get an interval. Lets say that Aberdeen beats Stirling and loses to Perth, I would get something like

  1. Glasgow
  2. Perth (could be anywhere from #2 to #4)
  3. Edinburgh (could be anywhere from #2 to #5)
  4. Dundee (could be anywhere from #3 to #5)
  5. Aberdeen (could be anywhere from #3 to #5)
  6. Stirling

This is a ranking based on the information I have. Aberdeen may beat Edinburgh, or not. At this point, this is far from obvious or trivial. If you look through the “tastings” above one by one you shall find that all the results are respected in the list. However, I have written a little computer program to help with the ranking.

Data and Code

The data of the above tastings is represented as JavaScript code as this (ignore price for now):

exports.whiskies = () => { return [{
   name  : 'Perth',  // 0
   win   : [1,5],
   price : 3.0
 },{
   name  : 'Dundee', // #1
   win   : [2],
   price : 2.0
 },{
   name  : 'Stirling', // #2
   win   : [],
   price : 2.5
 },{
   name  : 'Glasgow',  // #3
   win   : [0,2,4],
   price : 3.5
 },{
   name  : 'Edinburgh',  // #4
   win   : [2,5],
   price : 4.0
 },{
   name  : 'Aberdeen',  // #5
   win   : [2],
   price : 3.0
 }]};

This should be understood as (for example) Aberdeen is #5 in the list, it has beaten only one whisky, #2 Stirling. And if you browse through the data you can see that both Perth and Edinburgh has beaten #5 (Aberdeen). As I test more whiskies I just add them to the end of the list, and add more entries in the “win”-lists.

Let us say I get a great whisky, Port Ellen, I try it against the best of the list (Glasgow) and it wins. Then I add to the end of the list:

   name  : 'Port Ellen',  // #6
   win   : [3],
   price : 5.0

Get Ranking

I can run my program like this:

Documents/Programming/whisky$ node whisky.js example.js -r
   1   6-0      1-0       :2   100%  Port Ellen
   2   5-1      3-1      1:3   100%  Glasgow
   3   3-2      2-1      2:5    86%  Perth
   4   2-2      2-1      2:6    71%  Edinburgh
   5   1-3      1-1      3:7    71%  Dundee
   6   1-4      1-2      4:7    86%  Aberdeen
   7   0-6      0-4      6:    100%  Stirling

So the output columns are:

  1. Rank
  2. Extended won and lost tastings. Port Ellen has just beaten Glasgow. But Glasgow has beaten 5 whiskies (using the same extended logic), so Port Ellen is considered to have beaten all those 5 plus Glasgow, which makes it 6.
  3. Won and Lost tastings
  4. Nearest whiskies in the list that it has lost against and won against
  5. 100% means that it won and lost against it neighbors. A lower value means that the nearest winners and losers are more far away. So a low value is an indication that this whisky needs to be tested more.
  6. Name of whisky

Get Suggestions

The program can suggest what I should try next:

Documents/Programming/whisky$ node whisky.js example.js -s
Dundee     - Edinburgh   1 77%
Edinburgh  - Perth       1 66%
Aberdeen   - Dundee      1 66%

Without going into details, this indicates that testing Dundee vs Edinburgh will be the most useful thing to stabilize the list. As you see, even though Port Ellen is just tested once it gets no suggestions. It will remain like that until some (new, not on the list) whisky beats Glasgow. As long as I only test whiskies from this suggested list I will not end up with circles of A beats B beats C beats A.

Pricing

I do not consider price when I compare whiskies. Nevertheless it is interesting to compare value for money. How do you make sense of adding prices to a list of whiskies given different currencies, markets, stores, auction prices, bottling sizes and cask strength whiskies? Well, it is not going to be exact, but I came up with a Johnny Walker equivalent:

  1. Red Label
  2. Black Label
  3. Gold Label
  4. 18 YO (Platinum Label)
  5. Blue Label
  6. The most expensive whisky in my collection

So when set my price value (1.0 to 6.0) for any whisky, I try to compensate for ABV and bottle size, and then give it a price value from the table above. So if Black Label is $30 and Gold Label is $50, a $40 whisky will get a price of 2.5.

I can run my program:

Documents/Programming/whisky$ node whisky.js example.js -v
   1  1.303  3.500     75  Glasgow
   2  1.267  3.000     50  Perth
   3  1.167  2.000     30  Dundee
   4  1.143  5.000    200  Port Ellen
   5  0.917  4.000    100  Edinburgh
   6  0.767  3.000     50  Aberdeen
   7  0.667  2.500     40  Stirling

The columns are:

  1. Ranking in value for money
  2. A value for money quote
  3. The price value in JW-scale
  4. The price in $ based on the JS-scale
  5. Name of whisky

Finally I can do a price-quality-plot:

Documents/Programming/whisky$ node whisky.js example.js -c
 |                                         
 |                                         
 |                                        .
 |                                         
 |                                         
 |                    .                    
 |                                  .      
 |       .                   .             
 P .                                       
 R                                         
 I              .                          
 C                                         
 E                                         
 |                                         
 |                                         
  ===== QUALITY ==== correlation : 0.7373 ==================

This obviously makes more sense with more than 7 whiskies.

Code

For anyone interested in running this code themselves here are download links.

  • whisky.js (run this with node.js on the command line)
  • example.js (data file with above 7 fake whiskies)
  • peat.js (data file with my peated list 2021-05-01)
  • std.js (data file with my standard list 2021-05-01)

Do not expect my data files to be regularly updated. The price data is a quite new feature so some prices may be quite off and I am considering to remove prices entirely for whisky that can not be bought or where price is not known.

Final words

I keep working on the ranking (testing more whiskies) and sometimes improving the ranking program.

I am obviously thinking about making this available for other people (you) in a simple way. I am not sure how to do it though. I think it should be a web page. But I do not know if you should:

  • enter your tastings in my webpage and save it there
  • enter your tastings in an Excel-sheet or something, and upload it to my page just when you want to run it

Perhaps there is something even smarter?

Let me know if you would like me to make this available in some other way than just sharing the source code above (which obviously mostly appeals to programmers).

Tasting Jack Daniels

(also check out my full whisky tasting list)

I got a miniature kit with 5 different Jack Daniels whiskies that I decided to try head to head. This is what I arrived at, best to worst:

  1. Gentleman Jack
  2. Single Barrel Select
  3. Old No 7
  4. Honey (not a whiskey, but a liqeur)
  5. Fire (not a whiskey, but a liqeur)

First Round

In the first round i blind taste.

A (Tennessee Honey) vs B (Tennesse Fire)
Color: A is slighty darker and more reddish
Nose: B has a very funny aroma, cinnamon buns before they go into the oven, a lot of yeast. A is more elegant, also a bit like some pastry, some liquer. None have a very typical bourbon aroma.
Mouth: A is very sweet, soft, more like a punch than a whisky but nothing bad about it. B is perhaps even sweeter, with very much cinnamon.
Winner: I prefer A.

C (Gentalman Jack) vs D (Singel Barrel Select)
Color: D is darker, really dark, but also C is quite dark.
Nose: C has a quite typical bourbon aroma with some glue to it. D is quite similar, a bit more sharp on the nose.
Mouth: C also has a quite typical bourbon flavour, not very sweet or rich though. D tastes more glue than C. I find C has more flavour and a bit softer.
Winner: I prefer C

Second Round

Bronze match: Tennessee Fire vs Single Barrel Select
Color: Single Barrel Select is much darker
Nose: Fire smells cinnamon, Singel Barrel smells bourbon.
Mouth: Fire is mostly very sweet, now Single Barrel has a very nice bourbon flavour.
Winner: Single Barrel Select

Gold Match: Tennessee Honey vs Gentelman Jack
Color: Very similar, both rather dark amber.
Nose: Honey is much soft with a liqeur-like aroma, Gentleman Jack like try bourbon.
Mouth: A is very sweet, very soft, actually a bit like honey. Gentleman Jack is a quite easy to enjoy bourbon.
Winner: I prefer Gentelman Jack, but it is perhaps because I like bourbon and I am expecting a bourbon. Tennessee Honey is a bit ood and sweet to me.

Jack Daniels Old No 7

I also got a Jack Daniels Old No 7, lets see how it competes.

#7 vs Tennessee Honey
Color: Similar color, Honey slightly paler.
Nose: #7 a bit more bourbon, Honey softer.
Mouth: Well, #7 tastes just like a bourbon, Honeys is mostly sweet.
Winner: I prefer #7, it is more like whiskey and bourbon to me.

#7 vs Single Barrel Select
Color: Single Barrel Select slightly darker.
Nose: #7 a bit richer and softer, Single Barrel Select a little bit more kick and perhaps less like glue.
Mouth: Quite similar, Single Barrel Select has a more dry, natural and delicate flavour: #7 is more powerful but with more odd chemical notes.
Winner: I prefer Single Barrel Select.

Other Whiskies

Gentleman Jack vs Knob Creek
Color: Knob Creek is darker.
Nose: Gentleman Jack is more soft.
Mouth: Know Creek is a more raw and rough experience. Gentleman Jack is really a Gentleman, surprisingly soft and balanced for a bourbon.
Winner: I prefer Gentleman Jack.

Single Barrel Select vs Knob Creek
Color: Similar
Nose: Similar, very similar.
Mouth: Similar, Single Barrel Select is softer and more elegant, Know Creek more raw.
Winner: Singel Barrel Select

Gentleman Jack vs Buffalo Trace
Color: Gentleman Jack perhaps a bit darker. Or not.
Nose: Both have a classic nice bourbon aroma. Buffalo Trace slightly softer and sweeter.
Mouth: Buffalo Trace has an elegant easy to enjoy bourbon flavour. Gentleman Jack a bit more bitter and raw.
Winner: Buffalo Trace wins.

Gentleman Jack vs Jameson Black Barrel
Color: Similar.
Nose: Gentleman Jack has a spicy bourbon aroma. Black Barrel is a bit thick.
Mouth: A small sip of Black Barrel is nice, fruity and soft. A small sip of Gentleman Jack is a bit rougher and more dry. I finish Gentleman Jack and it is a nice bourbon experience, not very sweet a and a little sour. I finish Jameson and it is a more fruity experience.
Winner: Jameson wins.

OSR 2d6 Checks for more than Reactions

I propose using 2d6 (+possible ability modifier – possible difficulty) the resolve situations that can not just be role played in OSR games (where ability modifiers are -3 to +3).

General
-4: Failure, with extra negative consequences
-5-6: Failure
7: Partial success or failure with some unexpected twist
8-9: Success
10+: Success, with some extra good outcome

Bluff
-4: Not believed, hostile reaction or plays along
5-6: Not impressed
7: Bluff is not called, but reaction is unexpected (and not in a very good way)
8-9: Bluff is believed
10+: Bluff is believed and target is extra helpful

Breach or Destroy
-4: No success, exhausted some resources (equipment or possibly HP)
5-6: No success
7: Partial success, some malfunction or unexpected side effect
8-9: Success
10+: Success with style or some advantage

Climbing, Swimming
-4: Falling, Drowning
5-6: Did not start, had to go back if previously made progress
7: Some progress
8-9: Reached goal
10+: Reached goal in style or with some advantage

Fish, Hunt & Gather Food
-4: Found nothing eatable, exhausted some resources (possibly eating something bad)
5-6: Found next to nothing
7: Found one days ration
8-9: Found 1d4+1 days rations
10+: Found 2d4 days rations

Jumping
-4: Fall
5-6: Hesitate (on retry, -7 is Fall)
7: Partial success if possible, otherwise hesitate (on retry, -6 is Fall)
8-9: Success
10+: Success with style or with some advantage

Luck (like setting an ambush or a bait)
-4: Things turn out very much the opposite of the desired outcome
5-6: The desired thing does not happen
7: Be careful what you ask, you just might get it
8-9: The desired thing happens
10+: Things turn out remarkably well the way it was supposed to

Make item or mechanism
-4: It fails later, or loss of resources/injury immediately
5-6: No success
7: Not quite fit for purpose, 50% chance of malfunction or requires some support
8-9: Success
10: Unexpectedly good result

Make Shelter
-4: Shelter fails later on, loss of resources
5-6: Inadequate, possible loss of resources if used
7: Decent shelter if something is paid/used/wasted
8-9: Good shelter
10+: Shelter with some benefit

Perform
-4: Failure, making a fool of oneself, possible injury
5-6: No one is impressed
7: Audience is undecided or split
8-9: Good performance
10+: Surprisingly impressive performance, some advantage follows

Recall Knowledge (Lore, History, Geography)
-4: Remembers incorrectly, sure about oneself
5-6: No memory
7: Recall something relevant but not quite useful
8-9: A good general idea about the topic
10+: Knows significant details

Track
-4: The tracked party is aware of being tracked and can choose to escape or ambush
5-6: Lose track
7: Sudden encounter with tracked party
8-9: Localized tracked party at a distance
10+: Undetected, close enough for ambush (or just observing)

Background

Classic OSR games use 2d6 + CHA modifier for Monster Reaction and Retainer Reaction. There are multiple outcomes, not just success and failure.

OSR games don’t really have skills but sometimes things need to be randomly resolved.

Why not using the 2d6 + ability modifier, and comparing to a table of outcomes, not only for reactions? I see some advantages with this. The multiple outcomes drives the story forward in different/random directions, rather than the open/closed gate mechanism of success/fail skill check. Also, the focus is on what the characters want to do in the story, not what skills the characters may have.

A first nice thing about OSR is that things can play out without rolling dice. This is what we call player skill. But occationally I find it unreasonable as a DM to judge the outcome based on the players description on their actions alone. This is where the second nice thing with OSR comes into play: also the DM can be surprised and needs to adapt and improvise.

Difficulty and Ability

The primary purpose of these Reaction-like checks is to produce random reasonable outcomes in significant situations. If the characters are already good (or bad) enough, or the task is easy (or hard) enough to simply decide the outcome, no dice should be rolled at all. Thus, the default is that the DM and the players do not really have any real insight into the probabilities of different outcomes (it would suffice to roll 1d5 with no modifier).

It is not necessary to add an ability modifier. It is not like it is the right of the player/character to add a strong ability score. DM shuld not consider difficulty much and probably most of the time should not add difficulties. After all, the purpose is to take the story in an unknown direction.

Thieves/Rogues

Thieves (or Rogues) have skills of their own. Those are not to be replaced or made redundant by above rules. If a fighter can climb a wall using these rules the thief probably succeeds automatically, and if the thief needs to roll for his special ability no other class need to even attempt.

Custom Outcomes

Obviously nothing stops you from defining your custom outcomes for a specific situation, in advance or when the situation comes up. Something like:

-7: Sentenced to death by hanging next morning
8: Queen approves (back to prison)
9-10: King approves (back to prison)
11+: Both Queen and King approves (released)

Other options

There are options to rolling 2d6 + ability modifier.

  • 1d6 + modifier (which is seen in B/X for kicking open doors for example): gives very much significance to the ability score and not too many possible outcomes.
  • 1d12 + modifier: I have never seen it but it could work just as well.
  • 1d20 + modifier: gives too little significance to modifier in my opinion, and creates longer more arbitrary intervals of outcomes. Also the natural 1 and 20 are very uncommon and I prefer more variation in results more often.
  • 1d20 under ability value: feels too much like BRP to me.
  • 3d6 under ability score (as for Phantasmal Killer in 1e): Mostly just produces two outcomes and feels overly complicated

So I think 2d6+modifier makes sense, and it is established in old D&D versions (also for Clerics Turn Undead). The BECMI employer reaction table (Rules Cyclopedia, p132) looks like:

2: Resuse, insulted
3-5: Refuse
6-8: Roll again
9-11: Accept
12: Accept, impressed

This scale makes the middle results much more likely and the extreme results less likely than the scale I have proposed above. I think “6-8 roll again” (that will be almost 50% of the cases) is not optimal. The scale I propose leaves more of the options more likely, even when an ability modifier is applied.

If you really prefer 1d20+mod to 2d6+mod, I propose:

-4: Failure, with extra negative consequences
-5-9: Failure
10-11: Partial success or failure with some unexpected twist
12-16: Success
17+: Success, with some extra good outcome

Testing Paul John whisky

First check out my general whisky tasting list.

I got a Paul John whisky tasting kit. There are five whiskies, one is peated, so I will start with the other four, here listed in preference order

  1. Edited
  2. Bold
  3. Classic Select (cask strength)
  4. Brilliance

Brilliance vs Edited
Color: Edited is darker, I would say both are quite pale
Nose: I like brilliance, fresh and malty perhaps with sweet citrus to it. Edited is a different story: leather, oil and dirt, not bad at all, but more challenging.
Mouth: Brilliance tastes very young, a bit raw wood and strange sweetness. Also Edited tastes quite much wood, quite light compared to what I expected after smelling it.
Winner: Very comparable quality, I pick Edited.

Bold vs Classic Select
Color: Classic Select is darker, also after being diluted
Nose: Bold is a bit leather, sweet, quite subtle, somthing perhaps tropical about it. Classic select, at first I was confused but it has a more classic bourbon aroma, with something young/sour about it.
Mouth: Bold taste as it smells, young wood and leather. It has a long lingering woody/metallic taste. Classic select is clearly sour in the mouth (I cant write fresh).
Winner: Bold wins.

Edited vs Bold (for Gold)
Color: Very similar
Nose: Bold is heavier, young wood, not necessarily a good thing. Edited is more classic (scotch). Quite similar.
Mouth: Both tastes decent but quite immature, Edited is the more soft and sophisticated one.
Winner: Edited.

Brilliance vs Classic Select (for Bronze)
Color: Classic Select is darker.
Nose: Brilliance very light, fruity like citrus with something unusual tropical about it. Classic Select more sweet, and back to Brilliance it is more raw/wood.
Mouth: Quite much bourbon in Classic Select now, Brilliance is unrefined wood and fruit.
Winner: Classic Select

Paul John vs Other Whisky

Bold vs Johnny Walker Gold
Color: JW darker
Nose: JW is more mellow and oily, Bold more tropical/raw wood and spicy
Mouth: Bold is more rough, young, fruity. JW sweeter, richer, softer and more complex.
Winner: JW wins.

Brilliance vs Mackmyra Brukswhisky
Color: Brilliance is darker
Nose: Brilliance has a woody, sour aroma (with good intentions some citrus fruit). Mackmyra is a little sweeter, more honey, and less agressively woody.
Mouth: Brilliance is really sour, with a dry wood lingering. Mackmyra a bit softer but also more bitter.
Winner: These are bad in different ways, with a bit of doubt, I prefer Paul John Brillance.

Edited vs Johnny Walker Gold
Color: JW is darker
Nose: JW is more oily, leather and dirt. Paul John is lighter, more sour (not writing fresh) and raw wood.
Mouth: Edited is quite classic malt whisky, a bit raw. JW a bit chemical and odd-tasting.
Winner: With little margin, Paul John Edited wins.

Edited vs Glenfiddich 12
Color: Same color
Nose: Glenfiddich is more dry, salty and malty. Edited is more sour raw wood.
Mouth: Glenfiddich is more soft and mature. Edited is more rough, unrefined.
Winner: Glenfiddich 12.

Classic Select vs Motörhead
Color: Motörhead is darker
Nose: Both a bit on the fruity and sweet side. Motörhead more soft and subtle, John Paul more raw wood.
Mouth: Motörhead quite sweet, soft and gentle in flavour, John Paul a little bit more kick, and more odd and woody. I add more water to it.
Winner: I prefer Motörhead: more classic and soft.

Brilliance vs Bushmills Original
Color: Similar, both pale
Nose: Bushmills lighter, Brilliance more terpentine.
Mouth: Bushmills more delicate and complex. Brilliance more sour and raw.
Winner: I prefer Bushmills.

Bold vs Makers Mark
Color: Markers Mark much darker
Nose: Makers Mark is sweeter, perhaps even lighter. Bold is a bit dirtier and oilier.
Mouth: Makers Mark has a strong bourbon character and at least I need water with it. Bold is quite classic in comparison. Back to Makers mark it is softer with water but still this strong bourbon flavour is an aqcuired taste (and it tastes like glue).
Winner: Bold is better.

Classic Select vs Crown Royal Rye
Color: Same
Nose: Crown Royal has a sweet fruity aroma with some flowers. Classic select is a dirtier, woodier experience.
Mouth: Crown Royal definitely has a bourbon flavour, spiced with flowers and fruits. Paul John is rougher and more tropical wood.
Winner: Crown Royal

Bold vs Jim Beam Rye
Color: Jim Beam slightly darker.
Nose: Paul John has a classic, somewhat oily, almost peated aroma. Jim Beam is bourbon, vanilla.
Mouth: Paul John has a quite classic flavour as well, a bit thin, sharp and raw. Jim Beam is very spicy in its bourbon way. In comparison Paul John is rather soft.
Winner: Paul John wins.

Bold vs Bushmills 10
Color: Bushmills a little paler
Nose: Bushmills is light fruits, like green pears. Paul John really smells heavy and solid.
Mouth: Bushmills light and soft in flavour, flawless but without much of an impression. Paul John is heavier, more of an acquired taste.
Winner: Paul John

Edited vs Chivas Regal 12
Color: Similar
Nose: Chivas Regal is lighter, best thing I can write is classic. Edited dominated by young wood, a bit tropical.
Mouth: Chivas is very classic and balanced. Edited has a little bit more kick, more dry young wood and more character. After Edited, there is something cheap blend about Chivas.
Winner: Chivas Regal (Paul John is too odd to me)

Edited vs Glenallachie 10 (Murray McDavid)
Color: Glenallachie much darker
Nose: Glenallachie is soft and like wine. Edited is dirtier, more leather and oil.
Mouth: Glenallachie tastes like it has a strong sherry origin, Paul John is more raw wood with a tropical touch.
Winner: I prefer Glenallachie

Edited vs Glen Moray
Color: Similar, Glen Moray slightly paler
Nose: Glen Moray quite light, fruity with some hay. PJ is heavier, more leather and tropical notes.
Mouth: Glen Moray is fresh, light, with some green fruits and a bit of maltiness. Edited is more powerful, with this quite raw woody flavour.
Winner: Difficult, I could argue both ways. Edited is more powerful, more interesting, but I don’t quite like it very much. Glen Moray is more plain and boring, but it does its simple light single malt very nicely. I’d rather have a Glen Moray.

Paul John Peated Select Cask

I think what I have experienced as raw wood in a bad way for unpeated Paul Johns work out better with the peated one.

PJ vs Bowmore 12
Color: PJ a little paler, and also cask strength.
Nose: PJ has a soft, fruity peated aroma, quite pleasant. Bowmore a bit more oily and malty.
Mouth: I try PJ first at cask strength and it is distinctively peated. I try Bowmore and there is something unatural chemical about it, and I simply dont find it very tasty. Paul John is more fresh and coherent.
Winner: Paul John.

PJ vs Laphroaig 10
Color: Similar, Laphroaig perhaps slightly darker.
Nose: Laphroaig is more dry, PJ more fruity.
Mouth: Laphroaig has a rather smooth and dry, obviously dominated by peatiness. PJ is less integrated, it has a sweet – not bad – experience which kind of competes with the peat. PJ is interesting and not bad, but Laphroaig is more rich, complex and lingering.
Winner: Laphroaig

PJ vs Mackmyra Reserve Svensk Ek Extra Rök
Color: Mackmyra is much darker
Nose: Mackmyra is more deep, rich and powerful. Paul John is more fruity. Both smells a bit like a dry piece of wood getting burnt in a machine saw. Mackmyra reminds more of a sweet wine and Paul John is more odd.
Mouth: PJ (almost at cask strength) is rather raw with some peat. Mackmyra also raw, perhaps more smoke than peat, and a bit sweeter. PJ is lighter and its flavour disappears a bit in comparison with Mackmyra. Mackmyra on the other hand keeps needing more water. With more water Paul John has a more burnt (rather than raw) flavour, a quite straight experience but not too impressive. Mackmyra is more rich, complex, with more woody notes and it lingers longer.
Winner: Mackmyra

PJ vs Hven Tychos Star
Color: Hven is darker
Nose: Hven is a bit softer, PJ is a bit more woody in a sweet burnt way
Mouth: Hven is a bit classic, with some sour peat and some bitterness. Paul John is sweeter and fresher.
Winner: Paul John

PJ vs Bunnahabhain 8 Heavily Peated
Color: Similar
Nose: Very different, Bunnahabhain smells old closet and Paul John like a freshly built piece of furniture.
Mouth: Bunnahabhain is smoth, rich, a bit salty and lingering. Paul John is rather raw and thin.
Winner: Bunnahabhain

PJ vs Kilchoman UK Small Batch
Color: Paul John a little darker.
Nose: Kilchoman has a very classic Islay aroma, perhaps with some extra sweetness (from its sherry and madeira maturing). Paul John is more different, definitely less peated, a bit tropical… something I can’t quite define almost like plastic or something.
Mouth: Quite fine peated aroma in Paul John, a bit sour and odd. Kilchoman is softer, a bit more sweet, with more classic peat flavour.
Winner: Kilchoman.

PJ vs Bowmore 15
Color: Bowmore 15 (Darkest) is darker.
Nose: Paul John is richer, mostly this tropical odd aroma being dominant. None is more peated than the other.
Mouth: Bowmore is quite classic, slightly peated. Paul John a bit fresher, and in the mouth this tropical note is not so dominant (although on a final, second bigger mouth, it is there). Bowmore has a less rich, more classic aroma, but there is something unsatisfying about the sulphur finish.
Winner: Paul John

Simple Loops in JavaScript

I let SonarQube inspect my JavaScript code and it had opinions about my loops. I learnt about the for-of-loop. Let us see what we have.

Below four loop-constructions are for most practical purposes the same.

  // good old for-loop
  for ( let i=0 ; i<array.length ; i++ ) {
    const x = array[i];
    ...
  }

  // for-in-loop
  for ( const i in array ) {
    const x = array[i];
    ...
  }

  // for-of-loop
  for ( const x of array ) {
    ...
  }

  // forEach
  array.forEach((x) => {
     ...
  });

Well, if they are all practially the same, why bother? Why not pick one for all cases? Well, in the details, they are different when it comes to

  • simplicity to write / verboseness
  • performance
  • flexibility and explicitness

Lets discuss the loops.

The good old for-loop

The good old for-loop requires you to write the name of the array twice, and you need to explicitely increment the loop variable and compare it the length of the array. This is very easy, but it is possible to make silly mistakes.

In many/most cases it is unnecessarily explicit and verbose. However, as soon as you want to do things like:

  • skip first, or any other element
  • access several items in the array each (most commonly adjacent items: 01, 12, 23, 34, 45)
  • break / continue
  • modify the array – even the length of it – during the loop
  • sparse arrays, with undefined, it is obvious what you get

this becomes very natural with the good old loop. Doing it with the others will make it appear a bit contrived or the result may not be so obviously correct.

There is also something very explicit about the order. It may be true (or not?) that every implementation of JavaScript will always execute the other three loops in order. But you need to know that, to be absolutely sure, when reading the code. Not so with the good old for-loop. If order is a critical part of the algorithm and you may want to be explicit about it.

This is also the fastest loop.

The for-in-loop

for-in enumerates properties and loops over them. Do not use it for arrays:

  • it makes more sense to use for-in for Object, so the reader of the code may think your array is an object
  • are you 100% sure your array has no other enumerable properties, ever?
  • performance – this is by far the slowest loop
  • it is quite verbose

The for-of-loop

The for-of-loop is a bit “newer” and may not work in old browsers or JavaScript engines. That can be a reason to avoid it, but even more a reason why you do not see it in code you read.

I would argue this is the most practical, clean and simple loop, that should be used in most cases.

It is slightly slower than the good old for-loop, but faster than the other alternatives.

Array.forEach

I have been ranting about functional style code elsewhere. forEach is kind of an antipattern, because it is a functional construction that does nothing without a side-effect. A functional way to do something non-functional.

The callback function gets not ONE argument (as shown above), but actually 4 arguments. If you pass some standard function into forEach that can give you very strange results if the standard function happens to accept more than one argument and you did not know or think about it.

You get both index and array, so you can do horrible things like:

  array.forEach((current,i,array) => {
    const last = array[i-1];
    ..
  });

I have seen worse. Don’t do it. Functional programming is about being clear about your intentions. Use a good old for loop, or write your own higher-order-loop-function if you do the above thing often.

According to the documentation forEach loops in order. JavaScript is singlethreaded. But other languages may parallellize things like forEach, so I think the right way to think about forEach is that order should not matter. Best use for forEach are things like:

  ['gif','jpg','png'].forEach(registerImageFormat);
  players.forEach(updatePosition);

forEach is slower than the good old for-loop and for-of.

Sparse Arrays

I made an experment with a sparse (and worse) array:

  const array = ['first'];
  array[2] = 'last';
  array.x = 'off-side';
 
  let r = 'for';
  for ( let i=0 ; i<array.length ; i++ ) {
    r += ':' + array[i];
  }
  console.log(r);
 
  r = 'for-in';
  for ( const i in array ) {
    r += ':' + array[i];
  }
  console.log(r);

  r = 'for-of';
  for ( const x of array ) {
    r += ':' + x;
  }
  console.log(r);
 
  r = 'forEach';
  array.forEach((x) => {
    r += ':' + x;
  });
  console.log(r);

The output of this program is:

  for:first:undefined:last
  for-in:first:last:off-side
  for-of:first:undefined:last
  forEach:first:last

If this surprises you, think about how you code and what loops you use.

Performance

For a rather simple loop body here are some benchmarks

~160 M loopsMacBook Air 2014
node 14.16.0
RPI v2 900MHz
node 14.15.3
i7-8809G
node 12.18.3
i7-8809G
node 14.16.0
for ( i=0 ; i<array.length ; i++ )280ms3300ms200ms180ms
for ( i of array )440ms6500ms470ms340ms
for ( i in array )6100ms74000ms5900ms4100ms
array.forEach560ms10400ms480ms470ms

On one hand, a few milliseconds for a millions loops may not mean anything. On the other hand that could be a few milliseconds more latency or UI refresh delay.

Benromach: 7 wood finishes

I got the opportunity to try 7 different Benromach, all quite young, matured (finished) on different types of wood and casks. This is the result, from best to worst.

  1. PX Wood: 2002-2010
  2. Port Wood: 2000-2012
  3. Madeira Wood: -2008 (7YO+)
  4. Sassicaria Wood: 2002-2009
  5. Hermitage Wood: 2001-2010
  6. Pago Capellanes Picay Wood: 2002-2009
  7. Tokaji Wood: -2006 (5YO+)

In conclusion I can say I am quite unimpressed. All were quite thin in flavour and many had a significant taste of sulphur. There was little classic malty character overall. I also note that the commonly used casks/finishes ended up winning, and the more odd woods failing.

I actually blind tested these whiskies.

First round

In the first round I randomly picked 3 pairs of whisky (the last 7th bottle did not participate in the first round). This is the quarter finals.

Hermitage vs Port
Color: Same color.
Nose: Hermitage is more sweet and like desert wine. Port is less sweet and not peaty, but a hint in that direction. Mouth: Both tastes a bit of sulphur. Hermitage is thin, not very nice. The Port could pass as a light sherry matured whisky, it is richer.
Winner: Port.

Madeira vs Tokaji
Color: Madeira little darker.
Nose: Madeira is sweet classic sherry, a bit thin. Tokaji is thin, a bit fruity and a bit sour.
Mouth: Madeira is sweet, soft with a bit of caramel. Tokaji has much sulphur, quite dry wood and sour.
Winner: Madeira.

Sassicaria vs Pago Capellanes Picay
Color: Pago C a little darker.
Nose: Sassicaria smells wine in an elegant way, a little malty. Pago C has a woody sour smell.
Taste: Sassicaria is soft, balanced with a hint of sulphur. Pago C has much sulphur and is a bit rough wood.
Winner: Sassicaria.

Round 2

In the second round I let the 3 winners and the untested (PX Wood, by chance) whisky compete in semi finals. I randomly picked the two matches and blind tested.

PX vs Sassicaria
Color: Perhaps PX is slightly more pale.
Nose: PX has a wine/fruit aroma with a hint of sulphur. Sassicaria a bit sweeter and a bit malty.
Mouth: Both have some sulphur. I find PX a little fruity and salty, while Sassicaria is more dull.
Winner: PX

Madeira vs Port
Color: Port is darker
Nose: Both have an elegant wine and fruit aroma. Madeira a bit softer.
Mouth: Port is balanced with raisin and caramels, hint of sulphur. Madeira is lighter, more balanced and a little bit more rough.
Winner: Port.

I also randomly picked 2 of the 3 losers from round 1 and did a blind test between them.

Hermitage vs Pago Capellanes Picay
Color: Hermitage a bit paler.
Nose: Hermitage has en elegant wine aroma. Pago C is rougher with much sulphur.
Mouth: Hermitage has somewhat malty and balanced flavour, with some sulphur. With water it becomes quite decent but rather dull. Pago C has much sulphur and tastes immature. It is softer with more water, but still not good.
Winner: Hermitage.

Round 3

In round 3 we have the final, the game for 3rd place, and the game for (avoiding) last place.

Tokaji vs Pago Capellanes Picay (the two worst)
Color: Tokaji slightly paler
Nose: Tokaji sour and sulphur. Pago C more mellow.
Mouth: Tokaji mostly tastes sulphur and is disgusting. Pago C is somewhat softer, also mostly sulphur.
Winner: Pago C (I wasted most of both in the sink after deciding the winner)

Sassicaria vs Madeira (for the Bronze – I thought, see below)
Color: Similar
Nose: Sassicaria is like dry wine. Madeira is more fruity and sweet.
Mouth: Sassicaria has much sulphur, also some malty caramel. Madeira is more balanced with less sulphur.
Winner: Madeira

Port vs PX (for the Gold)
Color: Port is darker
Nose: Port smells raisins and little caramel. PX more balanced wine.
Mouth: Port is thin, with a hint of sulphur, but quite good. PX is caramel, little malt, and a hint of sulphur.
Winner: PX (with small margin)

Extra Round

I had to settle position 3 and 4. I blind tasted these two.

Madeira vs Hermitage
Color: Hermitage slightly darker
Nose: Some more fruitiness in Madeira, Hermitage more powerful, not necessarily a good thing.
Mouth: Madeira is with some reservatation a decently tasty whisky. Hermitage is a sulphur stinking rought mess.
Winner: Madeira (as already predicted in the original Bronze match).

Other Whisky

I will compare these 7 whiskies to other whisky. Check out my full head to head whisky list.

Benromach PX vs Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban
Color: Glenmorangie is darker.
Nose: Glenmorangie is fruitier, like peach or something sweet, and more rich and soft. Benromach more like a sherry whisky and with a hint of sulphur.
Mouth: Benromach is not exactly soft and rich, but somewhat balanced, with a hint of sulphur. Glenmorangie is more sweet, more soft, less sulphur. However, they are quite similar.
Winner: Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban.

Benromach Madeira vs Bushmills Banyuls
Color: Banyuls is darker.
Nose: Banyuls is sweeter, more bourbon. Benromach is more wine and sour.
Mouth: Bushmills richer, sweeter and more powerful. Benromach rather thin and dry in comparison. Bushmills, with more flavour, also has more of a lingering sulphur.
Winner: Bushmills Banyuls

Benromach Tokaji vs Grants
Color: Tokaji darker
Nose: Grants smells light malt and vanilla, Benromach something more undefined.
Mouth: Grants tastes light malt and vanilla. Benromach richer, more sweet/sour. Grants is softer, more chemical.
Winner: Grants (never appreciated Grants so much before, but it was quite close)

Benromach Hermitage vs Grants
Color: Hermitage is darker
Nose: Grants more vanilla and malt, Benromach more like sour desert wine.
Mouth: Grants kind of synthetic, Benromach somewhat balanced sweet and fruity.
Winner: Benromach (for more flavour and more interesting, Grants would have been the safe choice if I was offered a drink).

Benromach Tokaji vs J&B:
Color: J&B paler.
Nose: Benromach some undefined sherry fruity character, J&B mostly synthetic.
Mouth: Both tastes like cleaning products. J&B more soft and sweet. Benromach more acid.
Winner: Benromach (there is some interesting whisky flavour in it, but J&B is the safe choice).

Benromach Port vs Bushmills Banyuls
Color: Same (quite dark)
Nose: Benromach quite light fresh wine, after a while a bit more oily. Bushmills caramel and vanilla sweet, more powerful.
Mouth: Benromach quite sweet, a bit rough but also with some quality fruity flavour and sweetness, and a hint of sulphur lingering. Bushmills more sour, rougher, less flavour and more sulphur.
Winner: Benromach

Benromach Port vs Dalmore 10 Vintage:
Color: Very similar (dark)
Nose: Both quite thin, Benromach more raw cask sulphur and fruity, Dalmore more classic but something odd synthetical about it.
Mouth: Dalmore has a thin, sweet classic flavour. Benromach seems raw and unrefined.
Winner: Dalmore

Benromach PX vs Dalmore 10 Vintage
Color: Dalmore slightly darker
Nose: Benromach a bit more raw and fruity, Dalmore more classic yet synthetic
Mouth: Benromach rougher, Dalmore softer. The synthetic thing in Dalmore is probably some funny wood remains.
Winner: Dalmore

Tokaji vs Johnny Walker Red Label
Color: Very similar
Nose: Red Label very light, a bit ethanol. Tokaji more sour (and some sulphur I would say)
Mouth: Red Label soft, not very much flavour, a bit honey. Tokaji is sour, rough and with a significant sulphur lingering.
WInner: I prefer Red Label.

Port vs Paul John Brilliance
Color: Paul John is paler.
Nose: Paul John is quite light, a bit fruity, and not so little raw wood. Benromach Port is more oily and heavy.
Mouth: Paul John is a bit dry in the mouth, yet sweet, some bitterness. Benromach is heavier, more flavour, perhpaps softer but also more sulphur. I add water to both, Benromach gets softer but Paul John gets thinner with more wood.
Winner: Benromach Wins

PX vs Paul John Classic Select
Color: Benromach a little darker
Nose: There is more sherry character (with a hint of sulphur) to PX, and a more woody character to Paul John.
Mouth: Classic Select is more soft (classic even), PX rather rough immature sherry.
Winner: Paul John.

Sassicaria vs Johnny Walker Red Label
Color: JW a little paler, or at least less reddish.
Nose: JW is light, a bit chemical. Sassicaria a bit fruit and a hint of sulphur.
Mouth: JW is soft and tastes reasonably good. Sassicaria has much sulphur.
Winner: JW Red Label.

Conclusion

This are all thin, immature whiskies mostly with sweet flavour. They are not particularly soft, and unfortunately sulphur is the common theme here.