In the meantime they have discounted both the Uigeadail and the Ten, both at £5 off. I stocked up on the Very Young earlier this summer when they discounted it to circa £20, top bargain
Also £4 off Clynelish 14OB, so I purchased a few pre-xmas bargains before their festive stocks arrive.
kallaskander wrote:a German internet seller told a customer that it is made from stock distilled in the 1990ies and that that stock will last for about 3 years. But they could always release new batches with different stocks as they did with the Uigedail.
That is what they will do. Next year batch no2 of the 1990 will be released... Then 17 yo of course..
Nick Brown wrote:Unfortunately, I can see below the peat and it isn't always pretty. Its as though some distillers think they can use a wide cut and substandard barrels, and nobody will notice because of the peat."
I was curious as per your statement : Would you kindly care to please share which of the smoky whiskies are ones that you have managed to see past the smokiness, and found the whisky substandard due to be it barrels or whatever please?
This interests me, as there are a limited number of smoky whiskies around. You did, thankfully, give examples of some good smoky whiskies.
The love of smoky flavours is much a matter of taste. On the other hand, there is a historical link to producing smoky whiskies. What is interesting is that due to the rising popularity of such, more and more whisky distilleries experiment (again, and this time on purpose) with producing smoky varieties, to our delight or horror.
Certainly barrels play a part most important in how the whisky comes out. I've had a Backadder Bowmore which tasted as if someone had trashed several hundred cigarette stumps along with their ashes to the whisky, this was NOT a treat in my opinion! It was just ash, ash, and bitter, burnt flavour.
With Caol Ila, I havent found much problems, mainly some whiskies have been smokier than others, while others are more briny, but all have been good money vs. quality.
One indie-bottled Ardbeg has left me to wondering what they have done to the whisky to so effectively remove all traces of Ardbeg from it. No smoke, no flavour, flatness.
For the same price I do prefer the OB 10yo but it was nice to try the '94 as something different.
Frodo wrote:The one I'm thinking of was on the light side of medium peaty. Not what I was expecting from an Ardbeg. Harry has had a bottle or two so I'll defer to his tasting notes. I only tried it once, and I thought it was a big rip-off at $75 cdn.
It's £20 here. Pretty good for a change I thought.
The whisky was 'flat', almost devoid of smoke or peat, wood was already present in the taste but not in any positive way, and the overall flavour was dominated by a dull cereal-like taste. In a blind tasting I don't think I would have recognized it to be an Islay whisky, and certainly not Ardbeg.
This acquaintance has made me steer clear of Gordon & MacPhail's Ardbegs, and not to buy any bottling of theirs preferably without tasting it first. (I once also had a Rosebank from them that was truly awful).
bamber wrote:Cheers for that - sounds ok.
Edit: spent matches + sherry might equal trouble.
That's exactly it ... The CC '95 has a kind of burnt ash, spent matches peatyness, which, combined with a kind of perfumy mustiness that reminds me of the problems Bowmore is said to have had, makes for an unpleasant whisky.
The other Ardbeg characteristics are there, but they are muted by comparison.
I got two bottles at the store today (70 something Euros, per bottle, so it is a little bit more expensive than at royalmilewhiskies ) , but on german ebay the prices are soaring like crazy , the price of one bottle there pays for two of mine ( so maybe I just won't drink the second one yet) . But anyway I'm really looking forward to tasting this expression , hope it is as good as it sounds.
ANB is smokier but too weak. Smoky vanilla with some pepper. Long finish. Adding water to it makes it unbearable to drink. Awful. I have to give it some time and taste it tomorrow after dinner or something. Now we did not hit it off...
17yo is sweeter and oily, though I must admit that my bottle has been opened fo some time (years) now so it has probably affected it. It is more to my liking now all the same. More sophisticated, if you can say so.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests