Lot 40 Canadian Whisky, then VS now...

It is with great pleasure that I do this post with my friend Bob Caron (@Bob_Caron) and it's with even greater pleasure that I thank Sean Cain (@KYgeographic) from my twitter #whiskyfabric for contacting me at one point by sending me a photo of the original release of Lot 40 that he had purchased. It's a pretty rare bottle to get our hands on here in Canada so I was quite impressed when he sent me the photo. Of course I offered to send him a very healthy sample of the 2012 release so that he could compare the two and like the whiskyfabric often is, he reciprocated and sent me a healthy sample of the original. To which, I turned around and shared half with Bob. Why? Well because he appreciates Canadian Whisky and he and I regularly share, trade and have great discussions about them.

If you are looking for the back story about Lot 40, you "ain't" going to find it here. Check out my friend Davin's website, he is the grand master Canadian whisky guru:

1990's: http://www.canadianwhisky.org/reviews/lot-40-43-alc-vol.html

2012: http://www.canadianwhisky.org/reviews/lot-no-40-2012-release-43-alcvol.html


Take it over Bob: 

1990's label

"When I received the original Lot 40 (1990s version) in the mail, I had just come down with a cold and this was an opportunity that I did not want to squander. I’m feeling pretty good right now so here I go. I already had a bottle of the 2012 release and I was excited to put these head to head. The first pour from the sample bottles would be predominantly for nosing. I really took my time with this one. My first impression between the two was that there was no way these could claim a common heritage. They seemed so different. These nosing notes take place in a time frame of 45 to 60 minutes.

     
1990s - I got a blast of the traditional rye spicy nose at first with a hint of sweet orange liqueur like a Grand Marnier. There’s a hint of black licorice but it fades as the orange and now chocolate start to dominate. A bit of butterscotch makes a presence but the sweetness in the nose diminishes as the rye spice asserts itself again over the orange chocolate. The orange component faded a bit to reveal mint with the chocolate.
     
2012 - I didn’t get much sweetness at all on this one. There was a touch of Magic Marker smell and spearmint with an Earthiness behind it. The Magic Marker smell dissipates to leave the Earthy rye and the mint changes to a dill as chocolate starts coming through. Some mint is coming back but its more like a peppermint.

Now for the weird part, they are stating to resemble each other. They both get a bit of oak and leather and those Autumn smells of the leaves on the ground. Chocolate mint is there in both of them but the 90s version still has a hint of the orange. I’m glad I took my time with these because the evolution in the glass was very interesting. I then tasted these after being in a glass for about an hour. Just as the aromas had become similar, the tastes were also similar with chocolate orange and oak over the rye spice. Neither seemed sweet and the finish had a bit of dill lingering on the tongue.

I then did a fresh pour of each to taste again.
1990s - The chocolate orange is strong and I detect no hint of the dill among the the background of the rye. The 2012 on the other hand, the dill and oak and the Earthy tastes are at the front. With a bit of water, the two start to come back together again as they did after an hour of nosing. The 2012 however still had a hint of dill and the 90s version still had a faint amount of orange. The mint had faded away.

This was a really fun head to head and a great surprise how they started out so different and seemed to come together over time to reveal that they really do share a common ancestry. Who knows, maybe a 2012 bottle will be like the 90s version after ten years in the bottle or maybe the 90s version tasted like the 2012 back in the day".

2012 Label

Johanne's thoughts: My first "confession" about the 2012: DISLIKED it immensely. I tried it as soon as we purchased the bottle and I didn't even finish the dram. I remember thinking, well this is a bottle that will stay in the collection for a long time!? I even recall telling a fellow Canadian blogger/friend to wave off! That I thought it wasn't good at all. I prefered the Pike Creek release much more than the Lot 40. There it sat in the collection and I did send it to friends who wanted to try it. All of them enjoyed it so I was really perplexed as to why I simply didn't.

My aha moment came during the #DavinTT I hosted in the spring of 2013. I added water and boom! The dram was exciting. I've since enjoyed it several times since then and have bought more than one bottle.

So what did I get on the head to head:

1990's

Color: Dark amber. Legs plentiful, long and skinny. Very oily sample. 

Nose: Seville Orange Marmalade. Super spicy and what I consider a bit agressive on the nose. I could smell rye bread which is not uncommon but then last week Graham had a corn beef sandwich on pumpernickel bread.  That was it!  I couldn't smell anything else after that.  

Palate: Sweet butterscotch with a weird backdrop of fruit that is slightly overripe ( a grape that is on the verge of bad and you know the minute you bite into it). Nice and spicy like fresh gingerroot.  

Finish: Very peppery but I like it.  It's a fruity peppery with very little bitterness.

I added water and in my opinion it totally fell apart. Thought I had put too much water so tried two more times, same thing. I loved it neat and not at all with water.

2012 release

Color:  Identical to the 1990 release.  Dark color amber.  Legs are plentiful & skinny but the whisky doesn't seem as oily.  Does not appear to be as syrupy as the first release.

Nose: Dill pickles with a large dose of warm rye bread coming out of the oven. Caraway seeds always very prominent on this whisky. Then the second wave comes out: Sweet but almost artificial in nature. 

Palate: Ugh.. So bitter, almost like sucking on a white grapefruit. It still makes me shudder neat! Mouth dries out completely. Not pleasant for me at all.

Finish: Hot, peppery. Really strong cinnamon candies. Gives me heartburn.  

Needless to say I am not a big fan of the new 2012 release, well at least not neat. I really do enjoy it with water.  

The 1990 however really surprised me because I didn't need water at all AND as stated when I added water it sort of seem to ruin the balance of sweet, sour and spices.  

I think for both Bob and I this was a great experience. I really loved the fact that what got "us" all here was, once again, the whiskyfabric that I keep talking about.  

So thanks Sean (Sorry I asked a bit too late for your thoughts on old vs new - he had drank the sample I sent :) and a special thanks to Bob for once again stepping in and experiencing something new with me.

Whisky trail gets better every day.  

Johanne  

Whisky Writer's Circle - Profile: Charlie MacLean

Yes I am dedicated and almost obsessive when it comes to some things in my life. It is with great commitment that I seek, research, absorb (unlike some sponges these days...), live & breathe when I am passionate about a subject. I took to track & field in high school with that determination and precision. I feel the same about sailing, especially competitively. And then, there's whisky...

My non-whisky friends think I'm an idiot/savant or a heavy drinker and my whisky friends think I'm one of the biggest geeks they know as for me, well I know one thing:  
               

I can't imagine that ever changing. Part of being such a geek stems from the fact that I still love to read everything I can get my hands on may it be other blogs, articles, magazines and of course books. When I decided to write this series, I went back to some of the first books/magazines I read and just like my first whiskies I have a soft spot for some of those too. The pocket guide to Scotch Whisky was one of the first books I ever read. I found it at the library many moons ago. I sat, thumbed through it quietly and read for close to 2 hours when I was suppose to be studying for an exam: Best 2 hours of "wasted" time, ever! It was easy to understand, well written and simple. The terminology didn't overwhelm my newbie brain. I devoured that book and like every other whisky fan, hoped that someday I would actually get to meet the author. Meet him, I did... Spirit of Toronto May 2013, word came out that he would be leading one of the master classes. A) I was going to SoT and B) I had a ticket. His class was great. He is a fantastic speaker and presenter however, at a class or event you rarely get the opportunity to talk or really converse so it was an even greater pleasure that I was given the chance to dram with him and Ralfy for about 30 minutes. It was an opportunity for me to share my pride and love of Canadian whisky with two icons. Not fluffy conversation but real discussion about how the industry is changing, how perceptions on Canadian whisky are changing and that it is a shame that it isn't more readily available anywhere else in the world. Both of them loved the rye flavor, the sour overtones and the punch of spices. I, on the other hand, still struggle with the Lot 40 neat and have to add water to be able to enjoy it. Charlie mentioned it was refreshing to see someone admit that water was needed in a whisky and that too many "snobs" were trying to dictate how people should enjoy their drams. More discussion, more whisky and a night I won't forget. It was truly whisky bliss as far as the experience goes. 

Ralfy, Charlie and me enjoying a Lot 40 together

I wasn't sure he would remember me and I really wanted to have him as part of this series so this fall I contacted Mr. MacLean and asked if he would partake and he replied immediately with a resounding yes. 

Ladies & Gentlemen, it is with great pleasure and respect that I present: Mr. Charlie MacLean.

CHARLIE AT HOME IN HIS TASTING ROOM

Interview begins:  

So how did you get “here”?  When you were a little boy, I’m sure you didn’t say:  “When I grow up I want to be a whisky writer”?

"Ha! I don't think there was such a creature as a 'whisky writer' when I was a boy! Most seem to have been professors or gentlemen of private means with an amateur interest in whisky - George Saintsbury, David Daiches, RJS McDowall, Michael Brander, Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, etc.

I did, however, encounter malt whisky as a boy in the late 1960s - the father of my best friend at school owned The Glenlivet distillery, and I used to go there for holidays. I wrote my first piece for a whisky company - a brochure, for Bells - in 1981. The rest, as they say, is history. I am currently working on my 13th book about whisky".

What motivates you to still be in this part of the industry? Sometimes it can be quite unkind and very few can make a living doing this?

"I love the product. I love its history. I love the people who work in the industry. I love the people who enthuse about whisky. It is the life-blood, the quintessence, of Scotland, and I love Scotland with a passion. The industry has been kind and generous to me, by the way".

What sacrifices or tough decisions have you made to get to where you are now?

"Writing a book takes a long time, during which you tend to become totally immersed - you can't sleep properly, you keep odd hours, you sometimes drink and smoke too much. Also, since it earns you peanuts, the bank begins to bark and your wife begins to despair. As for decisions... I don't think I have ever made one in my life... I am entirely 'reactive'."

Since I saw you in May what have you been working on?  Care to share what some of your upcoming plans are?

"The current book is a history of Matthew Gloag & Son, creators of The Famous Grouse brand. I am nearly finished, and I have loved every minute of the research back to 1800. Next I have been asked to write text for a coffee table book about whisky by a famous photographer, called 'Spirit of Place'. And after that a book about smuggling (illicit distilling).

When I'm not writing, I'm traveling - tasting and talking about whisky: up-coming trips between now and January include New York, Paris, Monte Carlo, Dusseldorf, Basel, Stockholm, Helsinki, Jerez and Antigua."

If you could go back in time and talk to Charlie MacLean in 1984, what would you want to tell him?

"Keep taking the drugs...

Really, there's nothing I would change. I count myself extraordinarily fortunate."  End of interview...

After each interview I read and reread my notes and I'm always in awe at some of the responses. 

What exactly am I looking for through this series? A blogger challenged me after I wrote about Dominic Roskrow and criticized me for not being critical enough to ask the hard hitting questions like a good journalist would. I was flattered to a certain extent that he would compare me to a journalist (lol...) but I told him if he wanted those type of questions answered to ask Dominic himself. Of course he didn't and that doesn't surprise me. As for me, well I will leave the "hard hitting" journalism pieces for Mark Gillespie.

These pieces about my favorite whisky writers are not exposés or hard hitting journalism articles. They are another part of the journey that constantly evolves. I am always trying to figure out how I fit in, not only as a woman but as a blogger and serious enthusiast. I love to write, I love whisky. Sometimes I feel like my blog doesn't matter.  That I'm not moving fast enough and getting "there"... but in the end, I'm not even sure where "there" is?

I tend to think that these people, these icons that I consider giants didn't worry about the end result because, well because it's not the end. 

So what I'm learning for the time being is to keep putting one foot in front of the other, keep my eyes/ears open to opportunities and to continue doing what it is I'm doing... Whatever that is? Maybe some day I can look back and that is when I will realize where the "there" was.  Who knows?

Thanks to Charlie for the interview as well as the dram in Toronto. It means a lot to me that I get to do this and better yet, my way.

Lassie