Monthly Archives: May 2021

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.

The results go into my Whisky Head to Head ranking.

#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.

Bunnahabhain 1979-2000 vs Glengoyne 21: Glengoyne is darker in color. Bunnahabhain has a more mellow, subtle aroma. Glengoyne is more fruity sherry. Bunnahabhain has a classic malty salty whisky flavour. Glengoyne is more on the fruity side, a bit lighter. Some hint of peat in Bunnahabhain. I prefer Bunnahabhain to Glengoyne.

Bunnahabhain 1979-2000 vs Dufftown 18: Dufftown is darker. Very similar aroma, Dufftown is perhaps a bit more spicy and Bunnahabhain a bit heavier (yet not more powerful). Dufftown has a fine rather dry malt flavour. Bunnahabhain is richer, slightly sweeter, and I prefer Bunnahabhain.

Bunnahabhain 1979-2000 vs Johnny Walker Blue Label: Johnny Walker is much darker, and with a more peated nose. Bunnahabhain is more light and fresh. JW is very soft yet peated. Bunnahabhain a bit more sharp, raw yet more pure and distinct. Blue Label is a bit sour. I prefer Bunnahabhain.

Bunnahabhain 1986-2010 Carn Mor vs Imperial 21 (Auld Rare): Bunnahabhain slightly darker, with a quite fruity nose. Imperial has a more classic, slightly peated nose. Bunnahabhain is very good, both sweet and and old dry kind of flavour. Imperial a bit dirtier. Bunnahabhain is more interesting and complex. I prefer Bunnahabhain.

Bunnahabhain 1986-2010 Carn Mor vs Glenlivet 21 Archive: Glenlivet slightly darker. On the nose Bunnahabhain is more sour, sherry and salty. Glenlivet is more malty and sweet. Tasting Glenlivet it is very complex and flawless – on the brink of boring. Bunnahabhain is more sour, more raw. It is probably possible to prefer Bunnahabhain for originality (and perhaps sherry if you like that), but I find Glenlivet to be the more complete and perfected single malt, and I prefer to drink Glenlivet.

Bunnahabhain 1986-2010 Carn Mor vs Brora 38: Brora slighly paler, and more powerful and peated on the nose. Brora is soft and complex, yet a bit single minded on the peat. Bunnahabhain is more fresh but more sour in a not optimal way. There is more flavour in Brora, and it is more flawless, so it wins.

The Others

I also got #4, #6 and #7 to blind taste.

  • #4 is Bunnahabhain 2001-2020 Elexir (WB158992)
  • #6 is Bunnahabhain 12.
    (It turned out that when I ranked #6 in my Head to Head ranking it ended up next to Bunnahabhain 12 which was already there, out of 193 whiskies.)
  • #7 is Bunnahabhain 18

#4 vs Glengoyne 21: Color is very similar, golden/amber medium dark. On the nose, #4 is a bit more sweet and creamy, Glengoyne a bit more fresh/sour sherry notes. After a few minutes Glengoyne has a more definite Sherry character and #4 is… more like a sweeter wine than Sherry. Perhaps different types of sherry casks. #4 is supposed to be cask strength so I splash some water. Glengoyne tastes fine, but rather thin for what I could expect from a 21YO. Balanced sherry thought, that is good. #4 is sweeter in the mouth than Glengoyne and has a nice taste with a subtle hint of sulphur (perhaps – no it does not). There is nothing wrong with Glengoyne, well, there is a slight metallic taste lingering I think, and it really offers me nothing extra. It is a perfect whisky for people who dont want too much flavour and who are in to very delicate whiskies. Not interesting enough for me. #4 is really soft, it makes me think of both bourbon and sherry. #4 wins.

#4 vs Bushmills 21: Quite similar color, Bushmills is slightly darker after adding water to the strong #4. Bushmills has a soft sweet fruit aroma. #4 is a bit more classic, I would say more bourbon. Both are soft and rich, but Bushmills is the more Irish-soft and #4 feels a bit more Scotland-dry. Bushmills tastes amazing, so long lingering fruity flavour, almost not whisky. #4 is a bit more straight – it does not have that wide palette of flavours and it does not linger so long, but it is also flawless. But the quite special Bushmills 21 wins.

#4 vs Longmorn 16: I find Longmorn more pale and greenish in color. Quite similar aroma here, Longmorn is a bit less sweet and #4 a bit heavier. Longmorn is very well balanced in the mouth, the sweet and fruit does not dominate. #4 tastes more like heavy sherry flavour, but not at all too much. Longmorn is more a mix of classic speyside and bourbon. I find bourbon notes in #4 also though. This is about to come down to preference rather than quality. Longmorn feels more delicately crafted, #4 has more raw character. I often prefer more dry whisky to more sweet and sherry-tasting whisky and this Longmorn 16 is a bit of a favourite, but #4 is better.

#4 vs Bushmills 16: Very similar color. Bushmills has a hint of mint or grass on the nose (reminds me of younger Bushmills). #4 is more solid and sweet. Bushmills has a soft nice fruity flavour (quite unlike younger Bushmills). #4 has a more single-minded powerful taste. I put both to my nose, and none of them benefit from being compared to the other. I was about to conclude that I like the smell of #4 better, but the taste of Bushmills better. But I change my mind and find #4 simply better.

#6 vs Redbreast 12: Redbreast perhaps slightly darker. Both have a quite soft and distinctive bourbon aroma, Redbreast a little sweeter and #6 a little bit more sour. Redbreast is surprisingly salt, quite fresh, not that soft and it has a bourbon taste in the background but not as on the nose. #6 is good, surprisingly sweet, a bit more rough. Quite similar, I prefer Redbreast.

#6 vs Johnny Walker 18YO Platinum: Johnny Walker slightly darker. #6 is more bourbon, happy and fresh on the nose. JW is more peated and heavy. I taste JW and it is quite complex and soft, with a hint of peat, a little bit lack of character. #6 is more bourbon, more fruity, more fresh and a bit more uplifting. JW tastes like a whisky for very serious occations. I understand that JW is complex, soft and refined, but I prefer the happier #6.

#6 vs Macallan Fine Oak: Very similar color. Macallan has the aroma of both a sherry and a white wine, with a bit of whisky of course. #6 is more caramel and bourbon, sweeter. Macallan is probably slightly more powerful, but it has a sour (I dont want to say sulfur, yet) touch. I taste Macallan and it starts nicely, but it kind of falls flat a bit, it lingers but with no particular flavour, a mild bitterness. #6 is more sweet, bourbon and more sweet desert wine than sherry if you like. Macallan is very refined, perhaps complex, but it does not quite take off. I prefer #6.

#7 vs Strathmill 24 (1994-2018) Sherry: Similar color, #7 slightly darker (but I am not sure about ABV yet). Both have a distinctive sherry aroma. On the nose #7 is a bit sweeter and creamier and Strathmills a bit more balanced and elegant, a bit more malty. Both also have a typical, and quite fine, sherry flavour. Strathmill a bit softer, more elegant, and #7 little bit more raw and a little hint of sulphur. These are similar, and it is a narrow victory to Strathmill.

#7 vs Macallan 12 Sherry Oak Cask: Everything is the same color nowadays. #7 has a more sweet and raw nose, Macallan is softer but a bit more dull. I taste Macallan, it is flavourful, balanced, delicate and pretty boring. I taste #7, it has more saltiness, power and personality. If you are looking for easy, Macallan is the way to go, but I am a little bit more adventurous so I prefer #7.

#7 vs Glen Scotia Victoriana: Glen Scotia is more pale. #7 has a more sweet sherry aroma, Glen Scotia is more fruity and sweet than a regular scotch malt, but it is more raw and dry than #7. Tasting Glen Scotia it is not balanced – it is a bit everywhere and not entirely integrated. Both have a light hint of sulfur, #7 is more sweet and balanced. Glen Scotia is quite good but I dont quite understand what it is and how it wants to taste. #7 wins.

New Batch – 6 more whiskies

6 whiskies labeled 1-6 turned out to be (but I did not know when I tasted):

  1. Miltonduff 1991-2009 Chivas Brothers
  2. Glenlossie 1995-2018 Carn Mor
  3. Strathmill 2006-2020 Autumn Single Cask
  4. Glenlossie 25 That Boutique-Y whisky company
  5. Mannochmore 1984-2014 Helen Arthur (46%)
  6. Glenlossie 1999-2009 Managers Choice (59.1%)

#1: Pale, fresh, malty, very nice on the nose. Some bourbon and caramel. 51.3%.

#1 vs Deanston 12: #1 slightly paler. Deanston is more caramel on the nose. I thought #1 would kind of outpower Deanston on the nose but not really. #1 is more dry. I taste #1 and it is just as fresh and malty as I had hoped. Not overwhelmingly powerful but a quite perfect whisky. Deanston is a bit sweeter, which comes with a hint of bitterness. I prefer #1.

#1 vs Old Pulteney 18: Old Pulteney slightly darker. #1 a bit more sublte, malty, on the nose. Old Pulteney smells a bit artifical now. I taste Old Pulteney, soft, nice complex and it lingers. #1 is a bit more light, but so flawless. There is more flavour in Old Pulteney though, #1 has less to offer. I prefer Old Pulteney.

#1 vs Hazelburn 10: Very similar color. Hazelburn has a much more raw, sour and rough aroma. #1 is very delicately malty, both on the nose and mouth. Hazelburn is more raw also in the mouth, a bit more of an acquired taste. I prefer #1 here.

#1 vs Glenlivet 18: Glenlivet a bit darker, and more sweet and fruity on the nose. #1 is more dry malty. Glenlivet is soft and balanced, a bit burnt caramel with some bitterness. #1 is a bit more fresh, maybe oranges, and very classic being less sweet. Back to Glenlivet it is a bit too bitter. #1 wins.

#2: Rather pale, fresh and light on the nose, a bit of fruit a bit of malt, not really pated. 53.8%

#2 vs Ballantines 17: #2 is a bit paler than the quite pale blend. Ballantines is a little sweeter on the nose and tastes good, a slight blend feeling, a bit sweeter than expected. #2 is a bit more dry and I add some more water and that does not reveal too much more flavour. Back to Ballantines and it is rather disappointing, tastes like industrial alcolohol and a bit bitter. #2 wins.

#2 vs Dalwhinnie 15: #2 a little paler. Both have rather delicate aroma. Dalwhinnie a bit more malty and sweet, #2 a bit more fresh. Dalwhinnie tastes clean with some maltiness and some sweetness, and it tasts more like alcohol in a bad way. #2 is a bit more burnt, it tastes more raw. I am a little bit surprised here because I feel both whiskies are surprisingly subtle and delicate, but little margin I prefer #2.

#2 vs Old Pulteney 18: #2 slightly paler. Old Pulteney is more spicey, almost a bit mint, on the nose. #2 is more classic malty. Old Pulteney has soft balanced flavour with a gentle sweetness and some saltiness. #2 is very straight, malty, simple, flawless. #2 is a subtle and gentle whisky, but it makes other whisky taste worse than expected in comparison. #2 wins.

#2 vs Glenlivet Archive 21: Glenlivet is much darker, and has a rich malty quite sweet aroma. #2 is more light malt and caramel. Both color and aroma reveals more red dried fruits in Glenlivet, although it does not dominate. Glenlivet is soft, a bit less heavy than I remember it, with a wide palette of nice flavours ranging from malt to sherry-like fruit, not very peated though. I prefer Glenlivet being a bit more soft and complex.

#3: Very dark in color, more brown than red, with a full fruity aroma and also not so little bourbon. I doubt I have anything so good with so much sherry to taste with.

#3 vs Longmorn 16: #3 much darker. Longmorn has a nice fruity bourbon aroma. #3 is fruitier, more powerful. Longmorn is sweet, caramel in the mouth, hints of bourbon and sherry. #3 is surprisingly conservative in its flavour, a bit burnt sugar without being bitter, a hint of sherry, maybe. Now I start thinking the dark color comes more from age than sherry casks. Back to Longmorn, still good, still easy to enjoy with a quity nutty flavour. I prefer Longmorn, it is fresher, offers me more complexity, although I feel like I am missing something about #3 here.

#3 vs Johnny Walker 18: #3 is darker, and with a slighly more sweet and fruity nose. Johnny Walker a bit lighter. JW has quite much honey first, but with a slightly bitter finish. #3 a bit softer. I kind of feel the grain component in JW. I prefer #3.

#3 vs Glenfiddich 15 Solera Reserve: #3 is darker. Glenfiddich has a sweet caramel malty aroma, with hints of bourbon and sherry. #3 is heavier on the nose, a bit more raw. Glenfiddich, a bit minty in the mouth, quite balanced and nice but also a bit chemical. #3 is more solid, like much flavour but no flavours quite stands out, which makes it a bit boring. Not so sure here, I think Solera is in a way more interesting but I think #3 is after all a better and more tasty experience.

#3 vs Dufftown 18: #3 is darker. Dufftown has a kind of fresh, almost flowery, aroma that reminds of the barley it comes from. #3 is more sweet, hints of sherry. I taste Dufftown and it is quite dry, straight, a bit salty, well balanced. I taste #3 and it has some sherry, both for good and bad, and it is a bit thick in the mouth with some bitterness. Dufftown is more of a buffet of speyside flavours, and I think it beats #3.

#3 vs Ballantines 17: Ballantines is much paler, with a fresh light somewhat malty nose. #3 is more sweet and sherry. I taste Ballantines and it has soft maltiness with some blendiness finish. #3 is heavier, more raw and it has more to offer, but with my simple taste I prefer Ballantines.

#4: rather pale with a light spicy malty aroma.

#4 vs Glen Ord 18 (2019 special release): Glen Ord a little warmer in color, and a bit more powerful and dirty on the nose. In the mouth Glen Ord is rather classic malty, perhaps a hint of peat. #4 rather dry in the mouth, I add a little water, which results in not so much development. I find #4 is quite similar to Glen Ord but a bit less interesting and flavourful, would not be surprised if it is a single cask becuase I think it could benefit from some more taste components. Glen Ord wins.

#4 vs Glenfarclas 17: Glenfarclas is darker, and has a more light and minty aroma. #4 is a bit heavier. Glenfaclas a bit thin, a bit burnt and bitter, but quite decent. #4 is a bit softer, more caramel and malt. Back to Glenfarclas it is rather chemical. #4 wins.

#4 vs Aberfeldy 16: Aberfeldy darker, and more fruity and sweet on the nose. Aberfeldy is sweet and soft, slightly burnt sugar lingering. #4 is more fresh and malty. #4 is better.

#4 vs Deanston 12: Deanston is darker with a somewhat spicy and minty aroma, also rich and malty. #4 is more clean malty aroma. I taste Deanston and it is a bit sweet, quite soft, a bit bourbon. #4 is a bit saltier and fresher, like more clean and authentic. #4 wins.

#4 vs Ballantines 17: #4 slightly paler, Ballantines more amber. #4 has a maltier, more full bodied and spicy aroma. Ballantines tastes simple and nice, quite soft, a bit on the sweet side. #4 is a bit richer, more genuine in flavour. Back to Ballantines it tastes blend. #4 wins.

#4 vs Dufftown 18: Dufftown darker in color, and a bit spicier on the nose. Dufftown is spicy in the mouth as well, a bit sweet, classic malt. #4 is more dry: less to offer but more perfection than Dufftown. I like #4 better, really close now.

#5: quite dark in color, quite sweet and rather fruit on the nose, would surpise med if Sherry is not there.

#5 vs Glenfiddich 15 Solera: #5 a bit darker. Glenfiddich is more classic Speyside, #5 is more fruity and sweet. Tasting #5, nice rich soft sherry flavour (I suppose it is Sherry now, and not any other desert wine). Glenfiddich is more like white wine on the nose now, a bit more nut and caramel in the mouth. #5 has a nice saltiness. Another round and, well #5 is better. I am not such a super-fan of very sweet/sherry whisky, but this is nice, more so than Glenfiddich.

#5 vs Longmorn 16: Very similar color, if anyone is darker it is #5, and #5 has a more sweet (and sour) sherry aroma. I taste #5 and it has a pretty perfect sherry flavour, and it is soft, the sherry is a bit dominant though. Longmorn is more bourbon, vanilla, honey, also soft – even softer actually – and very nice. I understand Sherry-fans would perhaps disagree, but I prefer the more classic scotch whisky Longmorn, and I think it has more complexity.

#6: More pale than dark but not so pale, fresh fruity aroma with some malt. More malt and caramel after a while.

#6 vs Glen Ord 18 (2019 special release): #6 is slightly paler. Glen Ord has a more dirty, oily, leathery aroma, #6 more delicate. I taste #6 and it has a very pure nice malty flavour, a bit sweet. Glen Ord is rougher (I already wrote dirt and oil). You can probably argue that Glen Ord is more complex and has more to offer, but to me #6 tastes better.

#6 vs Springbank 9 Local Barley: Very similar color. Springbank smells a bit of raw wood, a bit sour. #6 is more delicate, soft and sweet. #6 tastes very classic, a bit nutty, some caramel, some vanilla, light and fresh. Springbank tastes younger, as in more raw wood, also quite light, more experimental. My guess is that #6 is some rather old speyside (single cask) and as such it has more balance. #6 wins.

#6 vs Imperial 21: Imperial is a little darker, with a compex somewhat oil, malty and fruity aroma. #6 is more gentle on the nose, more caramel. I water both down. #6 is soft, close to perfection, Imperial more of an acquired taste. I prefer #6.

#6 vs Glenlivet 21 Archive: #6 very much paler. Glenlivet has a rich sweet dark fruit aroma. #6 is also fruity, not quite the green one but a bit fresher. Tasting Glenlivet it has a rich complexity and it is very soft (could be a bit rougher). #6 is a bit more pure (I kind of hope it is a high quality single cask) and Glenlivet tastes more manufactured. I prefer #6.

#6 vs Glenmorangie 19: Glenmorangie is darker, with a malty caramel aroma. #6 is similar, a bit more more dry and fresh. I taste Glenmorangie, soft, a bit sweet, honey, caramel vanilla. #6 is a bit more thin, not as soft and complex. Glenmorangie wins.

Unknown #1

This is a pale light whisky with a slightly alcoholic aroma. It makes me think of Deanston 15 Organic.

Unknown #1 vs Deanston 15 Organic: Quite similar pale color, Deanston is slightly less pale, and slightly more aroma (not necessarily a good thing). Deanston is a light subtle whisky with some fresh fruitiness a slight maltiness. Unknown is arguably even more subtle, fruity but with no maltiness. I taste Unknown (not knowing the ABV) and it is a quite raw and strong on the tongue leaving very little impression in the rest of the mouth, some lingering bitterness. Deanston has some maltiness, grain, caramel. Back to #1 I suspect it is very young and I add a bit water to see if anything is revealed. Absolutely no peat (in either of them), and really no cask flavour at all in Unknown #1. Deanston wins.

Unknown #1 vs Johnny Walker Red Label: JW is much darker (probably artificial coloring). On the nose Johnny Walker has a light peated and slightly dirty aroma, not fruity at all. Unknown #1 is much more subtle, with a light fruitiness, perhaps. Red Label has the flavour of an oily speyside malt with some peat, just very diluted, and quite soft of course. Unknown is not quite so soft more burning, but less flavour. JW wins.

Unknown #1 vs J&B: A bit more color in J&B, unknown being pale almost pinkish. J&B almost only smells alcohol, I have a hard time pick anything else out. Unknown has a bit more sweetness and a little body to it, J&B, even less so. I taste J&B and there is some maltiness and some salt there. Over to Unknown it is probably stronger and burns more, that is the primary sensation. With some water, well there is some softness and oiliness, not just pure vodka. J&B is softer, more oily and tastier. J&B wins.

Unknown #1 vs Talisman: Talisman slightly darker and Unknown slightly more pink, both very pale. Unknown has a slightly thicker and oilier aroma, Talisman very little so. Tasting Talisman it actually has a nasty bitter chemical flavour, that Unknown does not have. Unknown #1 wins, by very little margin.

Conclusion: I do not know what Unknown #1. A cheap scotch blend is very possible.

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.


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.


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.


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 .                                       
 I              .                          
  ===== QUALITY ==== correlation : 0.7373 ==================

This obviously makes more sense with more than 7 whiskies.


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).