SMWS INSIDER
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before!
The Scotch Malt Whisky Society is known for its intriguing, playful and sometimes eccentric bottle names. But how hard can it be to continually come up with an original title for a single cask bottling? The answer, as SMWS ambassador Alex Moores describes, is that it is an ongoing challenge. Pour yourself a suitably named Society dram and prepare to explore a world of duplication, confusion and repetition in the world of Society bottlings
PHOTOS: PETER SANDGROUND / MIKE WILKINSON
The precis to this piece is that given the number of unique single casks released for members by the Society since 1983, the number of duplicated bottling names is impressively low. Names of bottles have also not always been intended to be the main bottle identifier, with many early bottlings under the original label having no name and the bold code era prioritising the cask code, so they have not always been the emphasis. However, they have always been either helpful indications or entertaining puzzlers as to what the contents of the bottle has in store.
For those members that discuss the flavour notes and memorable drams by reference to the bottle names, to avoid any confusion and settle those pub arguments, hopefully this guide will assist.
There are three main types of duplication:
- (1) the same name used sequentially for the same distillery
- (2) a name being repeated for the same distillery at a later point, and:
- (3) a duplication of a name across bottlings from different distilleries.
Each has an interesting place in the Society’s history, in providing a little insight into the processes of the time.
For a duplication to be valid by the author’s standard, it must be exactly the same, down to punctuation/spelling and order of words where the name is a collection of adjectives. Capitalisation is not relevant, as this is used differently through the Society’s label changes, and particularly in the monogram era where the bottling name is in all-capitals. So, with this standard set, the search for repetition can begin.
THE PANEL PROCESS OF NAMING
Almost…because before looking at the recurrences, it is worth a moment to consider the way that bottle names are created. It ultimately comes down to the chair of the Tasting Panel, who is responsible for distilling the comments of all panellists and determining the standout title. Some chairs have adopted the approach of starting with the name that surfaces from the most prominent comments and then the tasting notes develop as the discussion goes on, while others prefer to compile all the comments and then a name can be crafted from the most salient notes.
For a touch more colour, the tasting notes from the early Panel were also quite different from the later years. Generally, they contained some information on the distillery, and referred to earlier casks with comparisons or previous notes. This made sense for the time, as members had less in the market to evaluate in contrast to Society whiskies, and so an earlier SMWS reference point was more appropriate. Later, as the sheer number of releases had grown as well as the introduction of many different maturation variables, direct comparison meant less than a more detailed breakdown of the flavours and aromas.
Earlier whisky analysis, up until around 1988, was more about trying to give members a connection between the distilleries and the flavours, so it was more remarked upon when a particular bottling was atypical of the house style or when certain qualities were relatable to a region or style. As such, with fewer detailed flavours from which to draw, the names were less eclectic and more fundamental to the spirit. It naturally follows as an explanation that earlier casks may more easily repeat shorter titles.
It is also worth noting the fact that bottle titles were not always used. For those members who are curious, names were formally introduced in approximately 1998 (there was no room on the label until the Sailing Ship era in any event, and even once room was created it was not always used). The first bottling from a new distillery was for a long time denied a title (in fact, Cask 112.1 was the first time an inaugural bottle was named), so it is when names start to appear at the second to fourth bottlings with some regularity that indicates when bottle titles were a consideration of the Panel. The first of Distillery 1 to be given a title was Cask 1.32, but by Distillery 2 it was already occurring at 2.10, Distillery 3 at 3.11 and Distillery 4 at 4.12. A review of all distilleries shows that names were appearing as early as 1990, but were in full use as a key component of a release by early 1997 and were on the bottle as a matter of course by 1998.
However, as with all things there are anomalies, such as Distillery 26 having titles at 26.2 but Distillery 27 did not apply names until 27.14 and then promptly dropped them again until 27.21. It should be remembered that both the names themselves and the decisions to use them are influenced by the people and the time.
Through the major changes in Society personnel and processes over time, including the management overhaul in August 1995 and Pip Hills leaving the Society, and early 2004 when the Society was sold to Glenmorangie PLC before being reacquired by private investors in March 2015. Following the listing of the Society through its parent entity on the London Stock Exchange in 2021, there was not significant change in operations or the Panel process, but perhaps some more attention to the politically correct and intellectual property considerations. This will have an effect on how the tasting notes are formulated, with reference to their primary purpose at the time.
CATEGORY 1: SAME AGAIN PLEASE
The main perpetrators were the early panellists, and from Pip’s story of Hamish Henderson simply saying it was ‘just a lovely whisky’ despite being the author of the eloquent Freedom Come All Ye and Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica, this is no surprise. It is worth stating that some names of earlier bottlings did not actually appear on the label, but were recorded as being applicable to the whisky in Outturns/Bottling Lists and other sources.
Many of these repeats occurred immediately for sequential casks, a naming echo. Casks 1.44 and 1.45 were both called “Creamy, buttery and soft”. “Lemon and lime, sweetness and spice” appeared on 4.22 and 4.23. “Flowers, mint, peardrops and malt” lent its name to 7.11 and 7.12. “Of puffcandy, flowers and chocolate” is on 9.11 and 9.12, and there were many other examples such as 10.22 and 10.23 with “The taste is biscuity, like a fine champagne”, 15.4 and 15.5 with “Old-fashioned sherry nose” and this occurred again at 15.15. Cask 18.4 and 18.5 were named “Pears and privet”, 27.42 and 27.43 were “No blushing bride”, there was a triple run of “A subtle aroma of persimmons” on 16.13 to 16.15, and almost immediately “Kaleidoscopic Christmas cake” was at 16.17, 16.19 and 16.20.
The doubles continued as 24.29 and 24.30 were both “Liquid Toblerone”, 24.37 and 24.38 followed as “Fruits and nuts”, then 31.7 and 31.8 with “New Year by the sea”, 33.48 and 33.49 with “May flowers and Swarfega”, 35.11 and 35.12 with “Spring mornings”, 36.8 and 36.9 with “Tea chests and barley sugar”, 39.8 and 39.9 with “Bitter chocolate and strawberry jam”, 40.5 and 40.6 with “Like apples on a newly polished tabletop”, 41.10 and 41.11 with “Sweet moss smoke”, 41.17 and 41.18 with “Palo Cortado”, 47.3 and 47.4 with “Sweet and savoury in an indecently biological way”, 50.4 and 50.5 with “Fudge on a razor blade”, 53.32 and 53.33 with “Laughing gas”, 57.8 and 57.9 with “Vanilla cream biscuits”, and finally 78.18 and 78.19 with “Spanish nights: love it or hate it”.
There are some cases where the records indicate something may have been askew with the cask samples presented to the Panel. The exact same name (“Peat smoke and plums and a high, Gewurztraminer fruitiness”) and tasting note were used for both 4.25 and 4.26, which had the same ABV and no record of the outturn. This does not necessarily mean there was a split cask or actual overlap, as both 4.22 and 4.23 shared a name (“Lemon and lime, sweetness and spice”) and tasting notes, but ABV and ages showed clearly different casks.
In fact, some examples of these name echoes provide insight into the Panel process in those earlier years. It is clear that when multiple samples from the same distillery were presented in the same tasting session, they were considered together and the Panel often did direct comparisons. Casks 4.47 and 4.48 “A night at the opera” are different casks as shown by ABV and outturn, but have the same tasting notes and refer to the differences between the two. For this first category, the reuse of a name makes sense for the time, because it is an immediate indication to members who are wanting to restock a finished bottle with something of similar style and focusing on the differences in the tasting notes.
CATEGORY 2: CATCH YOU LATER
While some of the name echoes were adjacent, there were some strange anomalies of reuse relatively close together but not directly following the last. “A marriage of land and sea” was used for 4.36, 4.38 and 4.40 but with other names in the odd number alternates. This happened numerous times, including 1.60 and 1.62 with “A thoroughbred foal among whiskies”, 13.14 and 13.16 with “Like tooth tincture in honey” which had a very similar “Toothache tincture in honey” at 13.13 before being followed at 13.22 and 13.24 with “Conkers in a sauna bath”.
This was a more common occurrence for the earlier distillery codes, and other examples include Casks 17.11 and 17.13 with “Fit for a ship’s galley”, 21.11 and 21.13 with “A dram for a wild day”, 26.126 and 26.128 with “A wildcat did purr”, 29.62 and 29.64 with “Danger warning!”, 33.31 and 33.33 with “Seaweed and fruitcake and black plug tobacco”, and 37.10 and 37.12 with “Pears and finnon haddie”. As the earlier bottles were not given names, this was likely the result of a combination of the transition to considering use of titles as well as the code and the analogue record keeping of the day.
The latter component of this explanation is likely solely responsible for when names were recycled for later casks with a reasonable gap between them. Some were not too far apart, such as “Like grapes eaten from a rubber glove” for 10.24 and 10.27, “Sticky ginger cake” for 24.56 and 24.60, and “Black magic” for 37.118 and 37.122. Some had much larger gaps, especially considering that many other casks from different distillery codes were also being bottled in tandem. This included “McCowan’s Highland Toffee” for 30.29 and 30.45, and “Smoked venison and umami” for 53.5 and 53.50, which the author understands is the longest delay between a Category 2 duplication.
1. Tasting Notes for Casks 4.47 and 4.48: “Here are two samples from Orkney's pre-eminent distillery which amply demonstrate how whisky changes during maturation. They come from the same still run; it was made on a dark, wild day shortly before Christmas 1985, so had precisely the same characteristics when they were filled into casks. Look at them now. Unreduced, both are rich, interesting and reminiscent of burnt orange peel, but 4.48 adds an exotic evening-perfume note. When water is added, the aromatic division is pronounced. 4.47 becomes at once fruity and fizzy (Cremola Foam, for those who remember the stuff) lightly sulphurous (this disappears) and wood-smoky. 4.48 presents UHU glue with burnt sticks smouldering in the background, then fades into humbugs and cooked fruit. Both nose and flavour, which is mossy, are milder than its sister, so beware how much water you add. The flavour of 4.47 is typical of this distillery with a smoky-peaty catch in the finish, although sweeter than expected. Excellent products and very interesting to compare.”
This is certainly not the longest period between reuse of names in general, and for that we would look to the category where most members’ attention is drawn, and what truly enthuses the Society fanatics.
CATEGORY 3: SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY
The former two categories are more a sign of the Panel process at various times, but the most fun and the examples that make members the most excited are the third category of duplication. Independently reaching the same name for different whiskies removed by time and place raises the question of what the Panel were finding in the liquid. In studying the tasting notes and spirit details, following is a brief summary of the repeats and the author’s thoughts on any explanations or unifying qualities between the casks.
Not a sequential repeat in the above sense, but the Panel had an unlucky run with 41.74, 41.75, 41.76, which ended up being different Category 3 duplicates. In fact, Cask 41.75 “Some like it hot” had not been repeated at the time, but was reused 29 casks later for Cask 41.104, so was also a Category 2 duplication.
BONUS CATEGORY: NEAR MISSES
It doesn’t meet the author’s standard for an exact duplicate, but some casks were close to the wire with some very similar names, essentially where it is a punctuation or use of an article only to differentiate, and a brief summary follows.
There may be many others that members believe are quite close, but it is important to remember that there are many whiskies that share characteristics and dominant flavours, so there will inevitably be some shared notes in bottle names that are not overall duplicates.
CONCLUSION
The Society now having passed the 40-year anniversary, bottle names continue to entertain and inform the drinker with a hint at what is in store. There are always those members who recall flavour and its corresponding memories by reference to the famous Society code. But even the most mathematically focused person cannot help but look to the title and famous names will remain legendary worldwide. In order to keep producing such engaging identifiers, we can forgive the Tasting Panel a few repeats.