Lot 40 2012 Edition

[mbroo5880i]

I like LDI rye (Willett, BoneSnapper) and I am sure others. I loved the Jeff 10 Canadian NCF that I had. I assume it came from Alberta. I will probably end up getting a Lot 40.

[Gillman]

Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now. Before that, as far as I know, to find a Canadian straight on its own you have to go back to circa-1950 when Seagram had a line called Pedigree that came both in rye and bourbon. These were made in Canada and were all-flavouring whisky. But they were phased out, I'd guess not to confuse the market with "real" U.S. bourbon and rye, or maybe it was due to early trade agreements (pre-NAFTA) that reserved bourbon and straight rye to products which were made in the U.S. But the point being, products very similar to bourbon, straight rye, single malt and Irish pure pot still have always been made in Canada from Day 1. Here though in the last 60 years they have been used, until Lot 40 et al, solely for blending, to give taste to a much larger quantity of fairly bland albeit aged neutral spirit or something very close to neutral spirit. We used the straights as a seasoning, basically. The Americans do that too, e.g. for the 7 Crown type of whiskey, but the difference is, as with the Scots, they never stopped selling the straights on their own. The Irish did stop, like the Canadians, until fairly recently except for Redbreast and Green Spot, so a little "true" Irish was always available. But even Jameson and other famous names (Power's) - made famous when they were straight - had been turned into blends by the 1980's. Once again straight in this context means, distilled out at a low proof which is what locks the flavour in. It doesn't mean aged in new charred wood which has always been mainly an American thing. Nonetheless some Canadian flavouring whisky - e.g., Masterson's, WP, Jefferson, - is aged in new charred wood.

The Canadians have taken a much more flexible approach to defining whisky than the U.S. but in practice until recently it meant the market was dominated, and still is virtually to 100%, by the subtle blend… The straights came back here, I infer, due to the market success of single malt, Irish pot still and of course bourbon. So I think the distillers here felt they had to do something. Forty Creek's whiskies were kind of a bridge to this development, having more taste (quite a bit more) than the regular Canadian blend but not having a frankly straight character either.

Gary

Edited April 14, 2014 by Gillman

[MtnDew]

Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now.

...

Gary

Are you sure about that? I know the first Lot 40 was out a while ago and 12 years sounds about right, but it's my understanding it was pulled from the market for some reason, lack of demand I assume. The 2012 version is the latest version released, so essentially it's a "new" whisky again as there was a decade or so with no Lot 40.

And thanks for clarifying up the Canadian GNS question. I remember articles talking mixing flavoring whisky with base whisky, or whatever they called it, to make most Canadian whiskys and I had assumed that base was GNS. I guess I should have realized that since it was called 'whisky' it was likely aged, at least a little bit.

[Gillman]

I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

Gary

Edited April 14, 2014 by Gillman

[MtnDew]

I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

Gary

Thanks for the clarification!

[Jazzhead]

The Collingwood I enjoyed and described is the "regular" Collingwood, not the 21-year old "straight rye mash". I saw a bottle of the 21-yr old stuff a few weeks ago in Maryland and picked up a bottle of High West rye instead. The High West is great stuff, but I sure hope the Collingwood 21 is still available next time I'm in Maryland. I've search the Jersey packies to no avail. (I've never seen the regular Collingwood in Jersey either, but it is easy to find in the Pennsy state stores. It's a true bargain, IMO.)

[squire]

Ah, I see. From what I can tell the regular Collingwood is a blend of just two whiskys, a mostly corn base distillate and the flavoring rye, finished with toasted maple staves added to the vat for a period of time up to a year. Apparently designed to be a Crown Royal killer.

[Gillman]

That's my conclusion too.

Gary

[MauiSon]

I see this has made it to our friendly shores. I wonder if this is all from one big batch (2012 release) or is in continual production.

[ChainWhip]

I see this has made it to our friendly shores. I wonder if this is all from one big batch (2012 release) or is in continual production.

It should say 2012 on the label if it is the 2012

[MauiSon]

It does say 2012 release. I just wonder if it's worth $40 [to me].

[Kpiz]

It does say 2012 release. I just wonder if it's worth $40 [to me].

$40?! That's about $15 cheaper than I've seen it anywhere. I'm not a big fan of this one, as it's a little too muted for me, but it's prob worth $40, IMHo

[BFerguson]

It's completely worth it. And at that price it's a steal. Bag all you can.

B

[ChainWhip]

Its worth it - but its a lighter style compared to many of the american ryes. I was disappointed initially but came around quickly.

[MauiSon]

It's completely worth it. And at that price it's a steal. Bag all you can.

B

Ha ha, we've got cases of it here right now - I'll buy one to try, another if I like it.

[Gillman]

I don't find it light in any way, it's packed with pot still and nutty character.

Gary

[squire]

To call the Canadians light is a lot like comparing veal to steak, same sort of origin but different products.

[Gillman]

To call the Canadians light is a lot like comparing veal to steak, same sort of origin but different products.

The good Canadians that is, i.e., Masterson/Jefferson/WhistlePIg, Lot 40, Dark Horse, Collingwood 21 and some of the Forty Creeks.

Gary

[ChainWhip]

Fair enough on the apples-to-oranges sentiment... And the Lot 40 should be enjoyed in its own right - it is lighter in comparison to the aged American ryes I have been drinking.

It was a SBS tasting with a '77 Old Overholt that turned things around for me.