The Mystery of Canadian Whiskey

[Gillman]

Thanks for this, I found the later bottles better, and I believe that is what you have. It should be quite rich-tasting but with an evident strong mint or leafy orange taste that must be the rye (both unmalted and non). I would think the small grains is unmalted rye or perhaps barley malt. It reminds me quite a bit of the Potrero style of whisky, and I think again that derives from the common use of malted rye and low distillation proofs via the pot stilling.

Try a dash after in a glass of regular Canadian whisky: it really picks it up a lot. It makes a great addition to an American vatting of bourbons and straight ryes.

Gary

[TBoner]

Alright, here are my initial tasting notes on the Lot 40 I opened today. I tasted the whisky neat in a snifter.

Appearance: Dusty orange and gold: sunset on the plains. Legs are long and slow to walk away.

Nose: Oranges, flowers. Perhaps garam masala (seriously!). Persistent young wood aroma as a backdrop.

Palate: Heavy oil bars the flavors from hitting the tongue initially. Then, finally, a hard-edged rye grain flavor comes through, followed by the orange alluded to by Gary. Malty pot-still in the middle, a bit reminiscent of an Irish whiskey. Sandalwood and maybe a dusting of cardamom. There is no doubt a copper still was used, as a hint of old pennies hangs around the edges of the palate. Little to none of the red hots or anise sometimes found in American ryes. Big, heavy whisky, though, heady and full of flavor. This is absolutely loaded with congeneric character.

Finish: Long, lingering, oily. Here's the mint: the finish is actually quite similar to my EWSB 1994, though this wouldn't lend itself nearly so well to a mint julep. Malted rye can be tasted very plainly after the other flavors have gone. Literally a mouth-watering dram. I need something else to drink.

Lot 40 is an interesting experiment, and I think I really like it. It'll take a few more tastings to make sure (oh, no!), I guess. This is more than just a nod and a wink toward history. I'd be surprised if there's much neutral grain whisky in this, if any, as the flavor is full and hangs around. I wish more Canadian distilleries (or American distilleries, for that matter) would experiment with ingredients. OTOH, this stuff didn't really sell, I guess, and it was probably a costly venture. Well worth it to provide a taste of what old rye may have tasted like, I think.

Gary, I'll certainly take your advice and try this mingled with a Canadian. I know you've written before that the CC10 has the highest rye content (per a Corby rep). How does CC12 compare? A store I frequent has it on sale right now, and I'm thinking I might pick it up, but I want as much character from the whisky (as opposed to the wood) as I can get.

BTW, I can see a vatting of this and Beam rye being a very good, big, oily and busy drink. Competing floral character from each, loads of rye grain flavor, and of course some assorted citrus and spice. In fact, that may happen tonight.

Lot 40 isn't for everyone, and I'm not sure it's for me. But I'm duly impressed by the effort, and as I made my way through the glass, I became more enamored with each sip.

[Gillman]

Excellent notes, Tim. I think it would blend well with any CC product, the 12 has a caramel-like top-note that would absorb some that of oil, orange liqueur and mint tea-like taste. Recall CC is blended at birth, it might be interesting to add some Lot 40 to one that isn't (thus simply increasing the separately added malted rye batch whisky element), e.g., any Seagram whisky.

My take is that essentially what makes American rye rye is the new barrel and what makes Canadian batch rye rye is the absence of it plus possibly the high percentage of rye used in the mashbill. I would think the Lot 40 may be like a lot of early 1800's whiskies altough we can't really know for sure. Distillers might have had ways to rectify all-rye whisky that would have removed some of that exotic character, e.g., maple charcoal leaching, or perhaps new barrels were used for modification then..

Gary

[Megawatt]

Have you tried Gibson's Rare Reserve New Oak? It is the woodiest-tasting whisky I have had so far, I think. Much more so than Gibson's 12-year bottle.

[Gillman]

I have and I like it but I think the one aged in a scotch cask is better. See my comments on the thread I just started, Canadian Whisky Today, which I think brings together some points discussed in a number of threads relating to Canadian whisky.

Gary

[Megawatt]

I have and I like it but I think the one aged in a scotch cask is better. See my comments on the thread I just started, Canadian Whisky Today, which I think brings together some points discussed in a number of threads relating to Canadian whisky.

Gary

Scotch cask? Never knew about that one...just New Oak and Bourbon Cask. I haven't tried the Bourbon Cask yet, but I would like to. I think Gibson's makes one of the better Canadian whiskies...

[Gillman]

Sorry, you are right, I meant, that the cask that held bourbon before it held Canadian whisky held scotch in between (that is what the label said). Thanks for clarifying because you are quite right, it is called Bourbon Cask.

Gary

[Megawatt]

Sorry, you are right, I meant, that the cask that held bourbon before it held Canadian whisky held scotch in between (that is what the label said). Thanks for clarifying because you are quite right, it is called Bourbon Cask.

Gary

Ah yes, I forgot about that part of the labelling. It does indeed state the the bourbon casks were used for scotch. So does that not make it a Scotch cask? Rather confusing...in any case, I think that will be my next Canadian bottle...