Now, in previous
matchings on this blog there has often been some disparity between contestants
– one might be particularly expensive, one might have a more impressive ABV,
but here we have probably the most even matching yet – the same weight class,
if you will.
Both are the
standard expressions of brands that extend much further and higher. Cutty Sark
has expressions ranging up to a 25 year old, retailing around £110 at Master of
Malt while Ballantine’s range includes a 30 year old which pushes up to around
the £200 mark – and that’s before you get to the special editions, one of which
I’ve seen on The Whisky Exhange at nearly a grand.
In terms of
recommendations I’ve had, 101 Whiskies toTry Before You Die includes both the standard expression of Cutty Sark
and the 25 year old as well as the 17 year old expression of Ballantine’s.
Sticking to the
standard expressions though, Jim Murray rates the Ballantine’s very highly (96) and the Cutty Sark much
less so (78).
So now it’s my turn.
Marketing Bumf
Cutty Sark is
predominantly blended from Speyside single malts and ‘top quality’ grain
whiskies, and aged (again, predominantly) in American oak casks. Their website
states that, once matured, “the malts are blended together, as are the grain
whiskies” and that this is a particular feature of Cutty Sark. Frankly I don’t
see what’s so special about this, it sounds like the basic definition of a
cheap blend to me, but at least they do provide some information. I doubt there are any producers who blend their
spirit first and then age it since
blending is used to achieve a certain taste profile – you don’t know what the
spirit is going to taste like after you age it before you age it, if you get
what I mean. Some producers though, do age their spirit, blend it and then age
it again – I think they call that ‘marrying’ and I seem to recall Dewar’s doing
it with their “Double Aged” expression. Cutty Sark is merely aged and then
blended, it seems.
Ballantine’s reckon
that their standard blend is a ‘taste to satisfy a modern style” - whatever that means. Nevertheless, all whiskies
malt and grain are aged for “many a year” (read: at least 3) in “high quality”
casks.
Pricing
As I say, both are standard
expressions. I paid 11 euros for the Cutty Sark and £15 for Ballantine’s. On
the Whisky Exchange you’re looking at just over £18 plus P&P on both
counts.
Aesthetics
I know, not all that
important, and they won’t figure in the overall verdict, but I do like a nicely
presented whisky. My favourite of these two is the Ballantine’s. It just has a
vintage look about it. I like the shape, I like the slightly brittle sound the
bottle makes when you tap it, I like the weight and I like the label which is
printed on a nice matt finish paper – like a tasteful wedding invitation. That
has to rank as one of my favourite bottles of all time.
Colour
Little to choose
between these. You probably can’t tell from the picture because the dark nights
are drawing in and this was taken under artificial light in the kitchen, but
Ballantine’s is marginally darker
than Cutty Sark.
Nose
I found little on
the nose, merely determining that Ballantine’s was slightly more fragrant, and
possibly had a note of sherry. Even the Cutty Sark website gives up little:
“grassy, fresh and fragrant” it says.
Palate
Sadly the Cutty Sark
doesn’t give up too much to me on the palate, though on one occasion I got a
hint of apple pie on my lips.
In contrast, there’s
a lot going on with Ballantine’s
Finest. In the first instance it has what I could call that classic whisky
flavour that brings back memories of my first tentative steps into the whole
genre. It is beautifully balanced, not too bitter, not too sweet. The grain,
while evident is unobtrusive and the whole solution just sits softly and
luxuriantly on the tongue – I think the Ballantine’s website would describe
this as being ‘rounded’.
The only time I’ve
noticed any defect with the Ballantine’s is if I drink it after a single malt. The grain becomes far more evident, but I
wouldn’t tend to follow a single malt with a blend anyway (though that might be
a test I can carry out from time to time). I would expect many a blend to
suffer under those circumstances.
Finish
Ballantine’s has a
particularly good finish; long, warming and complex while Cutty Sark’s is of
acceptable length but just has that tell-tale rasp of grain about it.
Value and Verdict
Well, it’s nice to
analyse, sitting there watching the football with two glasses of whisky, but
it’s better to enjoy. And what I mean by
that is you don’t really know which is the better whisky until you have lived
with it. Which one did you enjoy most throughout the bottle’s lifespan? Which
one provided the ideal accompaniment to the situation? Did one develop and
deepen as familiarity grew? These are the things that really matter, and what I
can tell you is that my favourite is still the Ballantine’s. I would be loath
however to pay £18 plus P & P for either but at the prices I paid, both are
great value.
Shall we have a look
at what everyone in the world is saying about them on the internet, then?
There’s certainly more to be found concerning the Ballantine’s, but is it
better?
Ballantine’s:
The consensus
appears to be fond admiration among customer reviews but almost snooty
disapproval among bloggers, who say it’s only good for mixing. One said that
it’s one of those blends that people discover early in life and then stick to,
and the implication is that this is a bad thing – but if you find your
favourite early in life and nothing matches up to it, that’s what you’re going to
continue drinking after a while, isn’ it? Just a few nutty comments for you,
then:
From Master of Malt
“I have a bottle
more than 40 years old” So? Aside from
the fact that whisky doesn’t age in the bottle… why haven’t you drunk it?
“It’s so sexy and fine
just like man.” For some reason I read
this in a foreign accent.
From For Peat’s Sake
Nose
“Grandad's garage.” Show me on the doll where granddad touched
you.
Body
“eager to download
flavor to your brain.” Possibly a review
of the Ballantine’s Finest Digital from the future.
Overall
“in company of women its rated as an industrial strength
panty-remover.” If that’s true, what
are you waiting for?... I’m just imagining a factory where panties are
removed on an industrial scale…
“Something to try on the girlfriend.” Presumably
he’s read the review above. Sadly no instructions are provided. For the record,
Mrs Cake enjoyed the Ballantine’s, but underwear remained in place.I think wine
and champagne are more suited to the unsheathing of lady parts than any particular
whisky, should you want my advice.
Cutty Sark:
Appreciated for its affordability, but generally disparaged from all
quarters. Even so, it doesn’t inspire the same level of creativity that the
Ballantine’s does. Just a few amusing
comments so far:
From Amazon
“Best described as a
mix of urine and white wine.” One of the
world’s least popular cocktails.
From The Whisky
Exchange
“This is truly the
best whiskey I have ever tasted and not expensive too. Its light and very
refreshing. I like to have CS during summer with just soda.” I don’t know why people feel they are
qualified to review something they drink with soda.
“I've had worse.
Tried it once alongside a no-age-statement Glenfidditch [sic]. Cutty won. To me this
whisky kind of tastes like vegetable juice.”
So, I suppose
that’ll do. Thanks for joining me. In summary, over its life the Ballantine’s
Finest provided many enjoyable moments, and I’ll definitely consider repeating
the purchase next time I can’t find a blend to buy. I strongly suspect I’ll be
investing in the 17 year old at some point also.
It's another late post from me so once again, sorry about that. I have a quiet weekend of drinking coming up in which I might think about opening something new. The countdown starts now to opening the 32 year Bunnahabhain... er... 9 days and counting... look out for that on Twitter. Laters.
I have nothing witty to say but I enjoyed reading this and think it deserves a nod. I found it after discovering that my local supermercado here in Barcelona sells Ballentine's Finest for just 12,50 €. The search term was "why is [it] so cheap??. Evidently I enjoyed it for the price. Let the alcoholism commence.
ReplyDelete