jotter wrote:Well it is the Gallic for oak so the name fits with the pattern of the last bottling "Toitech" which was smokey. Be very interested in finding out more.
Actually Gaelic for New Oak
On the way back through Edinburgh Airport, there it was in tax free shopping. List price was £32.99 for a litre. But we bought it as part of the normal deal (buy any 2 bottles and get £10 off), so it worked out at £27.99.
cathach wrote:Nick Brown wrote:Actually Gaelic for New Oak
Aah but if I may be a Burke it's the Gaelic for 'Oak New' which is one of the syntactical glories of Gaedhlig!!
Am I a-thinking that are you right.
Burn Stewart Distillers Ltd
Basically it is overly sweet with a rough finish. The after taste is reminicent of my home made apple schnapps matured two years in a glass demijohn. The tube declares single malt, made from a mix of single malts! The "natural colour" and sweetness is suspiciously reminiscent of natural caramel. If you are unfortunate enough to own a bottle of this stuff and your guests like plenty of ice in their drinks give it to them they will probably enjoy it.
Maybe I am being a bit harsh but I expected an Islay malt and the price at £32 UK pounds for a litre is ludicrous.
Hope this helps
FWIW, caramel doesn't add sweetness to whisky, and I'm sure "natural colour" means just that. If it seems a bit dark to you, that'll be new wood, too.
Worthy of note is that I wrote my first post almost immediately on first tasting in shear fury at being ripped off. Going back to the bottle a few days later it was still as rough but had lost quite a bit of the aroma.
Now that is strange.
New Oak, which will have been charred, can add lots of colour. All bourbons, for example, are aged with new oak and no colour is added to them and they are often very dark. New oak is not that widely used in the Scotch industry and it does give some very intersting flavours. (I can think of only a few expressions offhand that I have tried and have used new oak: two Balvenies, a Glengoyne, this Bunna and a Famous Grouse, which like the Glengoyne used Scottish oak and is rather wonderful.)
The only legally permissable caramel that can be added to whisky is E150, which is supposedly neutral in flavour (see Jim Murray for a full discussion of this!) However, the flavours I pick out in the Darach do not suggest caramel anyway (and the labelling suggests that this is certainly the case).
Bit confused by the comment on Black Bottle, which has Bunnahabhain in it.
Personally (and I know about one man's poison) I think the Darach Ur is a rather good whisky - it is certainly a lot of fun with an intense sweetness (I too get notes of apple but in a positive way) and I think it is pretty good value (£30/litre is pretty good for anything). It is a brilliant session dram.
I personally love this expression , very tasty , don't find it woody like others , the higher proof and NCF make all the difference from the 12yo O.B. Hoping they will do it all to the 12 as well.....
Yokel wrote:Well no. New oak does not impart color, that's what port and sherry casks are for.
Well yes. I'm sorry, but you are misinformed, as Whisky Angel notes.
Yokel wrote:So far as I was aware quite a few new oak casks are used in the industry.
New wood is actually quite rare in the Scotch whisky industry.
Yokel wrote:The short of it is this stuff will prevent me from trying anything else this distillery produces except of course any of their produce that finds its way into Black Bottle.
I understand your very human reaction, but I think it's a shame. If it's not your cup of tea, there's no arguing; but it is by design an odd duck, so it seems unfair to judge the distillery's entire output by it.
Which of the previous posters sell this stuff I wonder?
I am a Balvenie man myself and not averse to new wood.
I also like a traditional Islay malt.
Each to his own but I really did not like the Darach Ur.
That having been said my vitriol was probably down to the way it was sold to me and the obscurantecism of the labelling. Bad combination.
I could not care less how old the distillery is, it is the stuff in the bottle that matters.
Let the producer come on here openly and tell us how old it is and what single malts it is blended from.
As for Islay Characteristics , if you are looking for the Peatiness/Medicinalness/Smokiness of Islay you will find it lacking in Bunnahabhain as it's Barleys phenol levels are usually just 2-3ppm , unless you go for their peated stuff (under their name "Moine" , "Toiteach" or quite a few indys have just released it as "Heavily Peated" ).
Bunnahabhain is marketed as the "Gentle Taste of Islay" , it can be salty , coastal i think is the word , certainly not the same as the peat monsters of the rest of the Isle . If you're into the Ardbegs/Laphroaigs/Lagavulins/Bowmores/Caol Ilas , this probably won't be your thing !
I'm also interested in what errors MrTH Made ?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the Darach Ur is actually is the first Bunna that I really like. As already pointed out, Bunnahabhain is not your typical Islay distillery. Why do Islays always have to be peat monsters? I do like those too, but the Darach Ur is a very interesting experiment. I guess it's a "love it or hate it" thing.
Stop quibbling about 'caramel' and 'sweetness' and concentrate on the taste.
The taste comes from the charred new oak barrels.
Note: new oak barrels are rarely (very rarely) used for aging Scottish single malts.
This may be the best new drop to appear on the whisky tasting scene since the introduction of cask-strength whisky.
Well done, Bruichladdich !!
A Whisky 'Geniesser' in Klein Nordende, Germany
Spirit of Islay wrote:If you think this is good you should try the new improved Bunnahabhain 12 at 46.3%
The Bunna 12 46.3% is going downhill for me. The rubber notes are becoming more evident with every sitting.
Every Bunna I have ever tasted was at the very least `average` or `mildly-exciting` because it was a new taste.On every occasion I was dissapointed.
The darach ur was a sickening malt to me...almost as vile as most scottish/irish poteens of old. @46.3% it might as well have been `white-spirit` I was drinking.The `after-taste` lasted 36 hours , the gag reflex was the same. A poor result for a malt I threatened never to open because it was allegedly a `batch-one` speciality.It was in fact an experiment that i hope they never repeat, because it didn't work, at least for me.
I read so-called expert reports from `self-proclaimed connieuseurs` talking about it's lovely `peat` taste when the distillery diverted a burn to specifically avoid peat taste altogether.In other words..people trying to sound knowledgable when they're simply bs'ing.This was a disgusting initial AND aftertaste.I can't believe I even gave a second thought to opening this vile concoction.After 3 glasses i'm now looking to give away the remainder.
Sorry if this offends anyone..I guess i'm just used to a different taste.
Willie JJ wrote:Johnnyreb wrote:I read so-called expert reports from `self-proclaimed connieuseurs` talking about it's lovely `peat` taste when the distillery diverted a burn to specifically avoid peat taste altogether.In other words..people trying to sound knowledgable when they're simply bs'ing.
You are of course entitled to decide that you don't like this malt and you are not alone; many don't. However the above statement shows your ignorance of the process of whisky making. The overwhelming majority of the peated taste comes from peating of the malt, not from the water. Bunnahabhain have been using peated malt to make some of their whisky for over a decade now. Please don't get abusive when you don't know what you are talking about.
Welcome to the forums by the way.
I've never tried the Darach Ur, so I have no opinion one way or the other, but I agree with your sentiment. Not everyone is going to agree on things as subjective as taste, but certain things aren't up for debate(the hard facts of the whisky making process).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests