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 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.

Name	Code	Similarities and Comments
Breakfast whisky	1.69 / 8.4	It seems honey with grains was the dominant determiner of breakfast, as the Panel notes for both speak of honey with nuts and a variety of cereals, including Weetabix, cornflakes and muesli. Cask 8.4 also speaks of buttered toast to round out the morning ritual, otherwise nothing else in particular unites these bottlings.
Nectar of the gods	1.121 / 7.127	There is not much unifying the aromas and flavours of these two casks. The notes for Cask 1.121 speak of brown sugar, rum and raisin, chocolate and lots of orange. The sense is that the defining feature was a viscous indulgence. This is carried over for Cask 7.127 where depth of flavour and texture carry the aroma of wood, polish and ink, as well as a savoury umami note. Both of these bottlings have significant maturation, but 1.121 is among the oldest bottlings by the Society.
Black forest gateau	1.122 / 91.9	No surprises that the Panel speak almost exclusively of BFG and its constituent parts for Cask 1.122. For Cask 91.9, the note is at the fore, but there seems to be much more in the form of leather, polish and toffee. It should be noted the additional 20 years maturation on the former cask, being closely aligned to Cask 1.121 discussed above.
A night at the opera	4.47 / 4.48 / 119.2	As far as the author has found, the only example of a same distillery duplication then used later for a different distillery. As a duplicate name, this is interesting because for Casks 4.47 and 4.48 the Panel found significant differences. Cask 4.47 is fruity and effervescent with a touch of Orkney peat, while Cask 4.48 is smoky and mossy with stewed fruits. The link to the opera remains unclear. Cask 119.2 adds some clarity, describing a heavy and perfumed nose of mahogany and fruits as “like a box at the opera with a great-aunt”, but little synergy with the other casks’ notes.
All the fun of the fair	4.232 / 41.74	Cask 4.232 had it all, with candyfloss, hotdogs, popcorn, donuts and the machine grease of fairground rides, but definitely a seaside fair. Cask 41.74 was even more of the sweets, with toffee apples and waffles on top of all the above, but expectedly no mention of seafood or coastal breezes.
Frisky whisky	5.24 / 48.87	Lemon sherbet, sugar honey sweetness, vanilla and zesty notes unify the flavour notes of these casks. Some sharpness, with both being relatively young, may have added to the Panel’s decision to take fruitiness to friskiness. Otherwise, one cask is ex-bourbon and one in ex-sherry, and there is little similarity that could end up synonymous with frisky behaviour in a whisky.
Sunshine in a glass	5.51 / 7.156 / 41.76	Among bottlings of some very disparate ages, for Cask 7.156 the Panel had all the impressions of a picnic in summer, but a vast array of flavours from honeydew spritzers and calvados cocktails to caramel desserts and pipe tobacco. With Casks 5.51 and 41.76, sunshine clearly just meant ‘lemon’, with citrus in every note. Interestingly, this name was used as a phrase in the tasting notes to Cask 2.114 but did not make it to the bottle, which was “Lemonade in a vase”, so lemon and sunshine synonymous again.
Bellissimo!	5.67 / 135.18	Italy was featured highly in both whiskies, but one sweet and one savoury. For Cask 5.67 it was Neapolitan flavours with mosto cotto, stracciatella and sette veli gelato. For Cask 135.18 it was Barolo Chinato and Gattinara wine with dry vermouth, herbs and Castelmagno cheese. It makes perfect sense that both styles done well would lead the Panel to utter a classic Italian elation.
Edinburgh rock	9.31 / 30.40 / 44.25	Unlike other name duplications, where a flavour note is the title, we would expect this to be the dominant flavour. All the notes included Edinburgh rock, clearly being enough of the overall experience to merit the whole moniker. These were all confectionary led drams, but all with reference to perfumed florals. For interest, there are a number of other casks that exhibited the flavours and aromas of Edinburgh rock, but not in sufficient measure to make it into the name.
A day at the cricket	9.132 / 50.87	Tea, cakes and cucumber sandwiches defined Cask 9.132, with a lager shandy as the game progressed. Cask 50.87 was more like the lunch break, with Italian meat ciabatta loaf and fruitcake with vanilla ice cream, but it also benefits from 14 more years’ maturation. However, the Panel agrees that it cannot be cricket without Earl Grey and rosehip.
Flower power!	12.15 / 80.8	Unsurprisingly, many different flowers are mentioned in both casks, with freshly mown grass and perfumed blossom. Cask 80.8 was a little more dried petals and fruit than fresh garden present in Cask 12.15. There are a couple of other bottlings that share a name connection, Cask 77.51 “Flower power shower” was a slight deviation but probably more orchard focused than florals, and Cask 39.239 was the same name without the exclamation point, and was far more herbal than powerful flower.
Continental breakfast	18.25 / 46.39	Certainly breakfast from the continent for both casks, but a little simpler for Cask 18.25, with grapefruit, buttery toast, orange marmalade and cereal for the authentic British hotel buffet experience. For Cask 46.39, there are Danish pastries, apple tarts, Turkish baklava and hot cross buns for a real tour of the pastry breakfast items.
A bag of sweeties	19.19 / 30.9	The sweeties for Cask 19.19 are toffees, butterscotch, caramels and richness, as well as liquorice and with just an initial aroma of love-hearts. Liquorice was the link to Cask 30.9, but with some additional assorted vanilla nougat, bubble gum and chocolates. Nothing but confectionary in the Panel’s notes for either dram.
Sweet dreams	29.185 / 35.238	The dream of the Panel in Cask 29.185 is a picnic by the coast on Islay. A charcuterie board and a bottle of Riesling, with seaweed rice crackers and salty lime popcorn, noting just a whiff of petrol. Cask 35.238 was a very different dream, starting with freshly baked scones and strawberry jam, perfumed aromas from scented paper, and a steaming Earl Grey (but not at the cricket). Perhaps a different Panel or perhaps just a different mood made both these drams transport the imagination.
A day at the beach	29.204 / 53.200 / 88.11	Cask 53.200 was quintessentially beach. Scallops, crabs, langoustines, oysters, seaweed, wooden groynes, salty breezes and boat oil all feature in the notes. It was more about the shore for Cask 88.11, with reed grass and sand dunes surrounding the cooking bacon and other snacks. Cask 29.204 must have had an underlying note of coastal qualities, because there is nothing specifically beach about the food flavours (French toast and maple bacon, Moroccan sausage and bean casserole, and melon and Parma ham salad).
Curiosity dram	35.151 / 36.125	Among many notes of shortbread, caramel and vanilla, the oddity flavours in Cask 35.151 were the touch of Worcestershire, onion chutney, chilli oil and ‘gamekeeper’s socks’ that led the Panel to acknowledge it would not be for everyone but scored high for its curiosity quotient. Cask 36.125 was more eclectic overall, fabric cleaner, iodine and old tobacco were quite atypical of this distillery. Among the unripe mango, green apple and candied pineapple, it was enough of a curio for the Panel.
Quality time	35.167 / 50.80	Cask 35.167 was all rich orange liqueurs and indulgence afternoon tea, with a touch of dunnage must. Boozy fruit jams and wood spice make for an opulent experience that justifies a quality time. Cask 50.80 was similarly deep and complex, with stewed fruit and caramelised savoury dishes. Both of these drams had significant age and were gentle refill ex-bourbon maturations (with just an extra 12 months in Sauternes for Cask 50.80).
General custard	35.261 / 46.78	Both first fill bourbon barrels, so the vanilla element is unsurprising. Notes of custard are sprinkled through the other dessert notes of fruit curds, warm caramels, bread and cake spices. Some sweet wines and cocktails common to both as well, but no hint to the duplication other than when one has a good pun, don’t just use it once.
Sweet memories	39.118 / 93.96	For Cask 39.118 the title is more literal, whereas Cask 93.96 it is a metaphorical sweetness. The former is all notes of sugar biscuits, gooseberry fool, sherbet and sweet grassy florals. The latter is cigar smoke and ash, chimney soot and wooden panelling, with roasted nuts and bitter citrus. Both are first fill ex-bourbon but otherwise very different whiskies.
Burnt orange	55.13 / 76.37	Cask 55.13 was a reasonably short maturation in ex-bourbon before a year in an active ex-sherry cask. Caramelised fruit and rich vanilla feature highly, with the burnt orange note coming in waves. There was a bit more rich unburnt orange in Cask 76.37 as well as the singed variety, with treacle and chocolate to add complexity, noting this was also an ex-sherry cask. Cask 2.49 “American cream soda and burnt orange” included the title, but not as the sole identifier, and a number of other casks saw the flavour note appear in the tasting notes but not enough to merit title space.
Smoky fruit	73.25 / 121.22	Somewhat strange this appears twice, and neither distillery is known for peat. Focusing on the notes relating to smoky fruit, the Panel was a bit confused in relation to Cask 73.25 without much more analysis than balanced smoke with astringent fruitiness or whisky with ‘fruity smoke’ and references to a schizophrenic dram. Cask 121.22 was more detailed in the fruits mentioned (oranges, cherries, pears, raisins) but referred to a lengthy smoky taste overall, and noting the materially shorter maturation than for the former bottling.
A game of two halves	90.10 / 91.17	The halves drawing the attention of the Panel for Cask 90.10 is before and after the addition of water. For this dram, its leather and tannery notes with some ash prior to dilution, and fresh fruit and coconut following a few drops. The first half for Cask 91.17 was farmyard vegetal notes with gunpowder and some cooked broccoli. What is clear from both names and notes is that in the game of two halves, only one was worth bottling, but both was a necessity.

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.

Name	Code	Similarities and Comments
Have some Madeira m’dear Have some Madeira my dear	30.23 / 112.47	A fundamental difference here is Cask 112.47 is an ex-madeira hogshead whereas Cask 30.23 is an ex-sherry hogshead, but with around three times the age statement. Notwithstanding, the flavours of madeira and rich, Christmas cake notes come through with a particularly viscous spirit character.
‘Cracking!’ Cracker!	4.189 / 35.152	The origin of the name of Cask 35.152 is clear, with the tasting notes referring to one Panellist only providing a one word assessment of the palate, Hamish Henderson style. The rest found fruity rich desserts with oak and tobacco. There was light ash and oak on Cask 4.189, but the dram was defined by blackcurrant, along with cherry and Scottish flora of bramble and heather.
A fireside dram Fireside dram	36.28 / 85.19	Cask 36.28 was a caramel intense dram from an ex-sherry butt with just a touch of cinder to conjure the feeling of the hearth. Cask 85.19 was more youthful and fresh, with gammon and spiced fruit, but still with some embers and coals.
A nippie sweetie A nippy sweetie! A nippy sweetie	54.8 / 54.37 / 73.74	A cornucopia of sugary fruit and vanillas defines Cask 54.37, as it was for Cask 73.74 but with a touch more toffee and richness. Cask 54.8 was all about the sweet pastries, with a small amount of spice to add the nippy. The reference was also made in Cask 105.7 “Nippy sweeties and Juicy Fruits”, and nippy sweeties are also referred to in the notes to Cask 90.10, a duplicate discussed above, and a few others.
Water of life The water of life	1.132 / 3.80	From the famous 1965 distillate, Cask 1.132 was bottled as a 40 year old, and exhibits a rich brandy-like sweetness of toffee, orange and coconut. Toffee and hazelnut continue with much younger Cask 3.80 but with the additional element of a light Islay peat.

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.