Cadenhead's (was Re: [MM-MALTS-L] Good & Bad whisky)

[Ethan Prater]

I was taken aback by the wildly variable quality of Cadenhead's bottlings
when I started digging deeply into single malts around 2000-2002  - to the
point where I now don't even consider them, and only rarely stop into their
shops when I visit London.

Starting in the late '90s, D&M Liquor, a high-end shop in San Francisco,
offered several Cadenhead bottlings as part of their whisky clubs. I recall
a horrendous Glengoyne, also an undrinkable Glen Grant, maybe a
way-too-young Bladnoch followed by an admittedly-interesting super-young
Ardbeg, and at least one distinctly average Bowmore (still better than the
endless flow of FWP OB Bowmores that came shortly after).

These repeated experiences flew in the face of the unanimously positive
reviews Cadenhead bottlings received in whisky publications, and the sort of
cult-like admiration, presumably originating from association with
Springbank, lavished by the online international whisky community.

I've still got a Benrinnes and "Braes of Glenlivet" from that period that
I'm far too scared to open.

Anyway, the owner of D&M acknowledged how bad these whiskies were, and
actually contemplated that Cadenhead ended up bottling different whiskies
from what he chose from the samples they sent for his club. Then Cadenhead
wasn't distributed in the USA for a while, but I've never paid attention to
see if it has come back. I occasionally spot the laudatory Whisky Magazine
review of a Cadenhead bottling and shake my head. Definitely a case where
you can't trust the bottler to give you a product they stand behind - I
won't spend time with a brand whose motto is caveat emptor.

-Ethan in San Francisco


On Nov 12, 2007 10:46 PM, Peter Wood <st.peter at paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> When any discussion turns on what is the best or worst malt whisky ever
> bottled, the arguments about which are the best are legion. Applying
> reductionist principles, the definition of the worst usually oscillates
> between the infamous Talisker and the FWP Bowmore. I take it we are all
> old
> enough to understand FWP, if not in practice, then by association (think
> Newquay, Grimsby, Peterhead)? I was unfortunate never to have had the
> Talisker, and have led a pure enough life not to have fully appreciated
> the
> Bowmore perfume. But the great range of bottlings that lie within the
> reach
> of normal people (those that spend less than 35% of their disposable
> income
> on malt whisky) are acceptable.
>
> I respect the Cadenhead attitude of "if we bought it we bottle it" because
> that increases the available range of maturations in varied casks of
> varied
> ages. Maybe most people wish to find the perfect malt and stick with it,
> but I would have hoped that those on a list such as this would think
> beyond
> the trivialities of perfection, and take pleasure in the endless
> variabilty
> that single cask bottlings provide - crap to sublime. Anything beyond that
>
> and we are engaging in religious sophistry.
>
> Peter Wood
>
> _______________________________________________
> MM-MALTS-L mailing list
> MM-MALTS-L at grsnet.net
> http://lists.grsnet.net/mailman/listinfo/mm-malts-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grsnet.net/pipermail/mm-malts-l/attachments/20071113/f209ade1/attachment-0001.html