Laphroaig Quarter Cask
Laphroaig 1994 Highgrove House
I'll come right out and say I was very impressed with the Quarter Cask. This was an absolute beauty, and made the 10yo seem quite inferior. It struck me straight away that I had tasted the first two in the wrong order.
I won't bore you with all my notes about Nose, Palate, Finish etc, but you might find my scores interesting:
Laphroaig Quarter Cask 8.0
Laphroaig 10yo 7.8
Laphroaig 1994 Highgrove House 7.8
Laphroaig 15 8.0
Laphroaig 30 8.6
These are unusually high scores in my book, as the majority of malts seem to land in between 7.0 & 7.5.
I approached the 30yo with the intention of not over-scoring it simply due to its age. However, once I was sampling it, I found very little to fault it. It was, in all honesty, an absolutely wonderful, sublime, and satisfying experience.
What struck me was how wonderfully different each expression was, whilst still maintaining an amazing degree of similarity! I know that doesn't make sense, but they were all beautifully contrasting variations on the one theme.
Just wondered if there was a reason you left out the Laphroaig 10 C/S? Unavailable or what? I recently found a couple bottles of it and it is "HUGE", I've yet to see the Quarter Cask here, but I am trying to get it ordered. I'll probably never spring for the "30" so I'm glad to taste vicariously through your notes, if you'll provide.
The 1 bottle of the "15" I've tried was over-the-top smoky, so I like the "10" better. Like you, I don't want to post notes on everything, but it could be an interesting comparision.
the 10 years CS is wonderful. Some do say it is far more like Laphroaig was in old times when the saying "You love him or you hate him, there is nothing in between!" was true. Wasn´t it a tasting by our beloved Whisky Magazine that elected the Laphoaig 10 years cask strength "Whisky of the Year" recently? Comparing the Quarter which has 48% vol to the CS 10 which has 55,7% vol I find the Quarter equally powerfull. The CS 10 has more sherry and raisiny sweetnes. The Quarter has a wonderful woody nuttiness and a sweetness that seems to come from the wood, too at least the fresh opened bottle does. Both are maritime, strong medicinal and distinctly islandish Islayish. I do not find much salt in them both, but typical jodine and phenolic aromas like walking into the surf when ebbtide has already set in. The peat is wonderfully embedded in both, into a sherried sweetness in the CS 10 and into malty, woody and nutty sweetness in the Quarter. They are both great in their own right and individual charakter. I strongly hope Laphroaig decides to continue the Quarter Cask.
Just wondered if there was a reason you left out the Laphroaig 10 C/S?
The C/S is available from a few stockists over here, but the evening featured 28 whiskies, and I guess it was felt Laphroaig was already well represented with enough different expressions.
The CS 10 has more sherry and raisiny sweetnes.
This has come up several times....we all taste a surprising sweetness in many of the Laphroaig expressions, and we assume it must come from sherry. However, several people on these pages have quoted from authoritive sources to confirm that the bottlings in question were from 100% ex-bourbon.
Makes Laphroaig a bit of an enjoyable enigma doesn't it?
in another thread I found the following while following up the links that were given.
http://maltresistance.blogspot.com/2005 ... -liar.html
Interesting reading, probably a bit biased. I will have to re-read it before I form an opinion. I just thaught I make the item known to you while we are comparing and discussing Laphroaigs.
we had a thread here a while ago about colouring and Laphroaig etc. You may find it interesting...
http://www.whiskymag.com/forum/viewtopi ... +laphroaig
There's a saying, "There's no such thing as a bad whisky....it's just that some are better than others!"
With this sort of attitude, scores will always be skewed such that the mean is greater than 50.
Also, how often do you score a whisky in the 25 - 45 range? Very few malts would score this low, so again, it skews the average into the 60's or 70's, rather than around the 50 mark.
I suspect Lawrence was speaking with tongue in cheek ( ) , but there is an element of truth to his words.
While it was about 1:30 am when I posted my comment I wasn't actually joking, I meant what I said. Most of the whisky that we taste is usually good, some not as good and some exceptional but the vast majority is good.
I have duplicated Jim Murray's scoring system below for some added weight to my point.
(Isn't nice that after 3 months we can talk about Jim and his scores without Revilo going off the deep end?)
Jim Murray Scoring System
0-50 Nothing short of absolutely diabolical.
51-64 Nasty & well worth avoiding.
65-69 Very unimpressive indeed.
70-74 Usually drinkable but don’t expect the earth to move.
75-79 Average & usually pleasant though sometimes flawed.
80-84 Good whisky worth trying.
85-89 Very good to excellent whiskies definitely worth buying.
94-97 Superstar whiskies that give us all a reason to live.
98-100 Better than anything I’ve ever tasted.
If one is genuinely seeking to explore more and learn more about the world of malts, then it's important to get a feel for what constitutes poor whisky.
Nothing puts a good whisky in context better than suddenly drinking one that's woefully inferior.
We probably don't appreciate how difficult and rare it must be to get a well-balanced sherried whisky, until we've tried a sherried malt that misses the mark.
Only by tasting whiskies that score 35 or 40 do we get a feel for what merits 65 or 75!
(Gosh, I've become all Zen-like! Excuse any attempts to sound profound )
as a newbie i am conscious of the fact that i should not speak out in an expert forum : but..
I got a taste of Laphroaig 10 yrs with a friend who got a Scotch colleague. The L was introduced as the SCOTCH.
Two days ago, the guy who runs a famous scotch shop let me taste a QS 10.
For me it was an incredible discovery : full, tasty and not aggressive - seducing to have more.
I started my first bottle yesterday and i discovered 1 major problem : how do you stop..
I can't go in tasting language (yet ?) but would insist that everyone gives it a try
PS Thanks for your regular input in this forum : for a newbie a mega inspiration !
i discovered 1 major problem : how do you stop..
If we knew the answer to that, we wouldn't be here either!!
Don't be frightened to post your notes here....there's no such thing as tasting language or right or wrong notes. It's simply what your tastebuds perceive! I think you'll find most people here would appreciate reading your tasting notes, no matter how detailed or simple.
welcome Luke, may the force be with you! Oh, sorry, wrong movie, you see we are not all experts herabouts but among us we are well able to ferret out any problem - we have created or the whisky world throws at us. Reading the different posts from around the world will give you an impression of how many ways there are to a view on whisky in general and some "expert issues" in particular. And that is what we are all about here, sharing opinions broaden our horizons and learning about whisky. I´ve heard the rumour that some members of this forum actually drink whisky. Could well be, I say.
Admiral, are you by chance in the Chinese Navy? I bow to a master of Zen.
you mean to say Mr. T that he is neither civil nor admirable, just posing and outside the rank an file at that? I can hardly believe that. As an antidote to my own ill wit and weird sense of humour I rush to his defence. Or was that antipode again? Well it may tike me a while to get there, then.
No, honestly I greatly value the opinion and comments of our learned friend from down under and will not join in making deregatory remarks about him, his wherabouts or his powers of spelling. Well, not more than usual anyway.
Greetings to the land of plenty, keep at the good work, men.
No thank you, no vegamite sandwich for me, please.
No thank you, no vegemite sandwich for me, please
If memory serves, I believe this is the fourth occasion someone here has had a swipe at Vegemite.
I'm beginning to wonder if the rest of the world is told anything else other than that Australia has Vegemite and Kangaroos.
In the interests of global education, may I also add that Australia is the driest continent on earth, was settled by the English in 1788, (after 40,000 years of occupation by the aborigines), has a current population of 20 million, brews the best lager, and has a depressingly high amount of American content in our television programming and in our culture in general.
It does beg the question, though, Kallaskander......have you [i]actually[/] tried real vegemite? Like most things in life, most people who knock it usually ain't tried it!
"Brews the best lager"?!? Well la de da! I'll bet you have the best slugs in your gardens, too.
(Sorry to pick on you so much lately...I guess we're just the kind of cowards to kick a man when he's down under. And sorry about the TV shows, too. We have a depressingly high amount of American content in our programming, too.)
Lawrence, you remind me that whenever I order Irish stew in a pub, I always ask if they use real Irish. (Bet Aidan gets a real larf out of that.... )
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests