The Scotch Blog

Columba Cream rises to the top.

Last September I did a short blurb about Columba Cream based on a story by Will Lyons in Scotland on Sunday called Columba Cream Plan Hits The Rocks.

That short blurb was followed up by an email from Jamie Morrison and resulted in a Christmas story called Columba Cream Responds. The story detailed a lively back and forth and resulted in an even more lively string of responses.

This past week Jamie was eager to let me know that there was great news for the Scottish Liqueur Centre; namely that Columba has been faring very well with shoppers at Waitrose (a UK-based grocery chain) and has been picked up at all 186 Waitrose locations.

According to the Waitrose press release:

First launched in Waitrose’s two Scottish stores last year, Columba Cream has proved so popular with customers that the supermarket will sell it nationally.

Last Christmas the single malt cream and honey liqueur quickly became the top selling spirit in Waitrose’s Edinburgh branches.

Now thanks to the exclusive deal with Waitrose, the small independent company that makes the drink - The Scottish Liqueur Centre - it is expecting to double its turnover to £1million by the end of this year.

Jamie also wanted me to know that Columba Cream was the biggest selling spirit (yes - outselling all other spirits, not just liqueurs) at the Waitrose stores during the 2006 Christmas holiday.

What's more remarkable is that this was accomplished without resorting to the standard UK practice of deep discounting.

To 'e' or not to 'e'

Steve Ury (who writes Sku's Recent Eats) emailed to ask my opinion on a recent proposal by Charles Cowdery (author of Bourbon, Straight). To wit, the proposal is: when writers write about Whisk(e)y, they should ALWAYS use the spelling common to the country they live - meaning that Americans should write 'Scotch whiskey', while in the UK writers should feel free to use 'Bourbon whisky.' (read it here)

This is what I quite simply refer to as - a stupid idea.

If for no other reason than it shows a gross misunderstanding of the US regulations currently on the books - which use the "whisky" spelling. If I were to take Cowdery's argument to heart, I would logically have to insist that we forsake the (purely arbitrary) "whiskey" spelling and revert all US produced whiskies to the 'no-e' usage.

But I'm not saying that at all.

In the end I classify such discussions as Sound & Fury arguments - (this of course is taken from [appropriately enough] Shakespeare's "Scottish Play", Macbeth) in that arguments like this are:

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

But, like an idiot's tale, sometimes they can be fun to listen to for a brief time...

ANY way, Steve and I traded a few emails, and he crafted a well thought out, and balanced view of both positions. Read for the sound and fury.

---

Whisk(e)y Wednesday: To 'e' or Not to 'e'
Steve Ury
Recenteats.blogspot.com

As you may know, there are two alternative spellings of my favorite alcoholic beverage: whisky and whiskey. In Scotland, Canada and Japan, they drink whisky. In Ireland and (mostly) here in the US, we drink whiskey. Now, to the person whose only interest is in drinking the stuff, who the hell cares how you spell it? But to those of us who write about it, there is an issue. Should we spell the word according to the type of drink we are writing about or should we pick one spelling and stick to it? Recently, a suggestion to change the standard practice by Chuck Cowdery erupted into a controversy that may soon rock the whisk(e)y world.

Deep Background

The term whiskey is said to have evolved from the Gaelic uisge beatha, meaning "water of life." Of course, the term "water of life" has been used in many European cultures to refer to the local liquor: Aquvit in Sweden (derived from the Latin aqua vitae) and eau de vie in France refer to regional spirits in those nations.

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary does not differentiate between whisky and whiskey, using a single entry for both terms. It does, however, list several alternative spellings which were used in the eighteenth century, including whiskie and whiskee. It appears that no consistent spelling was being used in the nineteenth century, with American and English writers using both spellings interchangeably. The standardization of the various spellings may not have occurred until the late nineteenth or early twentieth century.

The Current Practice

The current practice among malt writers in the US and UK is to change the spelling based on the type of drink being discussed. If it's Scotch, you call it whisky (e.g., Highland Park is a great whisky), if it's Irish, you call it whiskey (e.g., Bushmills is a fine whiskey)...etc. This is the usage in both of the major magazines covering the area: Whisky Magazine (British) and Malt Advocate (American).

When simultaneously referring to two whiskies with different spellings, Scotch and Irish for example, many writers use the term whisk(e)y.

                                                 

Now THIS is Marketing

Attendees of the Glasgow Whisky Live will have the chance to participate in one of the best the best whisky marketing stunt in a long time.

What is a "Whisky Amnesty"?

The same idea behind a gun amnesty - something that is unfortunately a common occurrence here in America, whereby you turn in your illegal firearm and all is forgiven.

But this one is different and much better - it's like turning in a hand gun and getting a bazooka in return.

Got a bottle of some horrible Vodka? Crappy Blend left to you by a dead relative? Nasty Rum you picked up in Belize? Something unidentifiable you picked up in Bulgaria and are afraid to drink?

Turn it in and Highland Park will give you a bottle of their 18 year old in exchange.*

Jason Craig, Highland Park's Global Brand Controller, tells me:

To be able to host a Whisky Amnesty in Scotland is both exciting and an honour, as never before has an event ever been run like this within the whisky industry.

Highland Park 18 years old is a multi award winning single malt which we have wanted to showcase as much as possible and what better way to do this than to give whisky lovers the chance to enjoy it for themselves. Over 140 people have already registered to take part so we know it is going to be very popular on the day.

The amnesty will begin at 3pm on Friday 2nd November at Highland Park’s stand within Whisky Live, held at the SECC, Glasgow.
 

---

* Rules? There are always rules.

• Bottles brought to the amnesty must be full sealed 70 cl bottles of any spirit.
• The replacement bottle will be a 70cl bottle of Highland Park 18 year old
• One exchange per person
• There will be 200 bottles distributed on a first come first served basis
• All bottles handed in will be recycled and their contents disposed of in accordance with WRAP and Scottish Water Guidelines

Ratings revisited and the horror of "Edvertising"

I hate ratings.

We'll get to whisky in a bit, but first, take a walk with me into the strange and unbelievable world of wine critique.

The triumvirate of wine publications.

Wine Enthusiast, Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator. These magazines aren't sold for their editorial content. They are sold on the numerous, abridged reviews they do each month, to people who are apparently incapable of making wine purchasing decisions on their own.

Taste, review; taste, review. They churn through wines (apparently by the case load) for each monthly issue - slapping each wine with a breviloquent single paragraph review and a rating . . . allegedly on a scale from 0 - 100.

Yes, the scale is 0 - 100, but apparently it's ass water if it scores below 80, and "Wines receiving a rating below 80 are not reviewed".

I wonder - "why not?" Aren't readers of these magazines just as interested in what NOT to buy as what to buy? I'd wager the answer to that question is "Yes".

So why wouldn't a magazine that prides itself on being the final word in wine critique actually do some critiquing???

Could the impact of (potential) lost advertising sales be a factor in not mentioning the unmentionables? Of course it could.

On Michael Jackson's Passing

Of course by now, you all know of the untimely death of Beer & Whisky writer legend Michael Jackson on August 30th.

At the time of his death I was in the middle of Nevada's Black Rock desert with no access to the outside world. I did not learn about his death until my return. As such, I had no opportunity to write a timely & fitting tribute.

But of course a web site dedicated to whisky couldn't let his passing go without mention.

---

I first met Michael some 15 years ago when he hosted a beer tasting in Washington, DC. I was just getting into craft brews and his passion for the topic struck me and delivered me whole-heartedly into the mind frame of "Drink Better". At that tasting Michael signed a beer glass for me which my wife subsequently placed in the dish-washer - returning the glass to it's pristine, pre-signatorial state. She is, of course, no longer my wife.

Years later, Michael signed a book for me with the simple inscription "Keep Writing". For a journeyman in the world of spirits writing, being recognized by THE master was a special moment for me. Just as special is the fact that a signed copy of my book resides in Michael's Library.

In my subsequent meetings with Michael he was always kind and encouraging. I'm really quite sad - not only that I'll never get to run into him again - but that I won't be able to enjoy new words of wisdom from him.

The whisky world is truly a poorer place for his passing.

Gary Regan knew Michael better than I and recently had this to say in his Ardent Spirits newsletter:

The world lost a great man on August 30 when Michael Jackson, the man who almost singlehandedly saved the world's craft brews from extinction, brought single malt scotch to the attention of the planet, and paved the way for all modern-day beer and spirits writers, died of a heart attack at his London home.  He will, indeed, be missed by millions, and his tireless work will not be forgotten.

Ian Buxton has known Michael for quite some time and contributes this about Michael:

I had the privilege knowing Michael since February 1984, when we met en route to various Czech breweries – a trip full of incident, recalled with great fondness when we met last, earlier this year.

Having written extensively on beer, by 1987 he had begun to develop an interest in whisky that became both encyclopaedic and authoritative.  His influence on the development of single malt whisky in particular cannot be over-stated.  He was the single most influential modern writer on whisky since Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart and, arguably, the most important since Alfred Barnard in the late 19th century. The distilling industry recognised this with various awards, most notably his nomination as a Master of the Quaich.

Despite his great experience and the increasing severity of his advancing illness he retained a charming enthusiasm.  Recently, on a particularly unrewarding distillery visit, I observed him making extensive notes, as was his lifetime habit.  When I asked what on earth he could find to write his reply characterised his innate modesty and unbounded gusto: “There is always something new to see”.  I am looking for it still!

Over the past 23 years I grew to admire not just his writing, his wide-ranging knowledge, his passion (over-used word) but also the good humour and fortitude with which he bore his long-standing illness.  His importance as a writer on both beer and whisky will grow in the future but for now we mourn the loss of a comrade, loyal friend and true guide.

I took this photo of Mike Miller (Delilah's Chicago, IL) chatting with Michael at the 2006 London WhiskyLive.

Ian And Blackwood (Part Deux) and the silliness of self-proclamations

Ian Buxton once again unleashes the fury at Blackwood distillers. This time the fury appears on the "Rumour Mill" portion of the Scottish Field Whisky Challenge.

Ian takes aim at one of the members of the Blackwood team and their dubious assertions:

Here is an excerpt:

But what caught my eye this time, under the heading “The team”, wasn’t the tiny tots but the redoubtable Ms. Riannon Walsh, described as “Non Exec” and the “USA's leading whisky expert”.

Now leave aside what Paul Pacult, John Hansell or a number of luminaries would make of that assertion and consider Ms Walsh’s own claims to fame.  Her own website describes her as author of “Whisky Dreams: A Culinary Journey Through the World of Single Malt Whiskies” and President of Cloonaughill Distillers Ltd. of Ireland.  Impressive credentials, indeed.

But sadly for such an enticing title, Whisky Dreams does not appear on either of Amazon’s US or UK sites . . .

You really want to read the rest of this . . . Read the full piece here.

What strikes me is why someone would want to make a claim that is A. disputable; B. disprovable, and C. nonsensical.

It brings to mind the angst of the Steve Carell character in "Little Miss Sunshine" over whether he, or his rival was "America's Leading Proust Scholar".

Who gives a shit?

"Leading"?

Even were we to ignore the fact that this is a self-proclaimed title, and consider for a moment that such a title should be granted by people who live outside of your house, by what measurement would the title "leading" be granted?

Amount of published written material on the subject? Respect of Peers? Number of Books sold? Industry Awards and accolades? Respect and admiration from the general public? Runs Batted In (RBI)? Height? Enemy Fighters shot down over the South Pacific?

Can Riannon lay claim to "leading" by any of those measures?

What's the deal with Blackwood?

There are questions in the whisky community about Blackwood Distillers. The Scotch Whisky Review just released their own humorous take on the lack of actual distillation taking place at the company, and Ian Buxton, frequent TSB contributor has his own thoughts on the subject.

He asks the questions that a lot of people have been banging around - "What the hell is the deal with Blackwood Distillers?

---

Is no one else bothered by the activities of Blackwood Distillers?

Quite remarkably this company is still promoting themselves as “Blackwood Distillers of Shetland” with the claim “From the remotest region of Scotland, come pure natural spirits…”

That must be darkest Airdrie (some 15 arduous and remote miles from Glasgow city centre) where, under a private label contract, InverHouse Distillers make most of Blackwood’s white spirits.  (For those unfamiliar with the geography of Scotland, Shetland is a group of islands in the far North, nearly 400 miles from Airdrie and involving a 12 hour sea crossing.)

Sherry IS wine, dumbass.

Today's story comes from the inimitable Mark Reynier of Bruichladdich. This is a response to purists who decry the use of wine casks for additional maturation.

---

There is a school of opinion that objects to the use of wine casks for single malt whisky. This raises several controversial issues. True, wine casks have indeed been exploited by some bottlers for outright marketing reasons but I argue that this subject is a much more complex one than just marketing.

Firstly I confess, guilty as charged, that at Bruichladdich we have been using wine casks er…since 1881. Wine casks for whisky are not new - sherry, after all, is a wine.

“I have noticed, in the forty-five years since I began to study whisky, that the general style of most if not all kinds has changed…The older whiskies were darker in colour, from being kept in golden Sherry or Madeira casks, rather sweeter in taste, and rather heavier in texture; the newer are lighter in both the first and the last aspect, and much drier in taste.” This was the introduction of Bourbon casks (made from Quercus Alba, or white oak) and was written in 1920.

Imerman wins big; shares win.

Just a quick note to laud Vivian Imerman who, out of his own pocket, gave 600 members of the Whyte & Mackay workforce a 3 month bonus.

The source of this windfall? The profit Imerman made from the sale of W&M to Vijay Mallya.

This type of corporate generosity is incredibly rare - most of the upper echelons who come by huge profits tend to pocket it. I am really pleased that such a large and unexpected profit sharing came from within the Scotch Whisky industry.

Bravo, Mr. Imerman.

My response to Carl's comment...

I thought this response was important enough to make it's own post...my response to Carl's comment from the previous story...

I certainly don't want to turn this into some sort of feud between Mr. MacLean and myself. He has a great body of work, which I respect and enjoy.

And god knows I've pissed enough people off.

I agree that Mr. MacLean seems to affirm that he feels that the SWA is playing bully to the Indian government. He does not say "I never said that".

But he certainly also tenders his support for the SWA.

I currently have the very enviable position of simply being a pundit with a number of opinions and a website which I use to make my opinions known.

And thankfully, I do not rely on anyone associated with the whisky industry for my income. As a result, I am free to say what I believe, and not feel obligated to play both sides.

It's a freedom which I enjoy - but which also ensures I'll forever be on the outside of this industry. (You don't piss off Charles MacLean, Paul Pacult and Diageo and expect to be named a "Keeper of the Quaich").

In the Indian situation, I think it is apparent to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the issue that the Indian Government is playing protectionism at its most blatant - and spitting in the face of free-market economies - all the while whining about not being allowed open access to markets.

Did you all know that Mr. Mallya is a member of India's Parliament?
- He is.

See the connection?
- I do.