Off course it's the 12 Y CS. Followed by the 16 Y and then the 25 Y. The younger the better it seems, which is rather unusual?
I wonder if Ardbeg is still my favourite Islay whisky now, Lagavulin is catching up. Perhaps it's time for a head to head with Ardbeg 10 and 17 and Lagavulin 12 Y CS and 16
Ya, I give the 12yo first place.
But maybe I just like em younger and stronger
I rate them as follows
1 - 12 yo cs
2 - 16 yo
3 - 25 yo
Why - well I like the punch and the youth in the 12yo, the 16 yo settles to quickly if you ask me (and yes, I think it isn´t what it used to be), and there is to much granny´s ol´ cupboard/attich in the 25yo..
No, there's nothing private about a simple fact, and an educated palate that can tell a good thing!
In fact I agree with you there. My palate is very happy with the way this poll is developing. My palate thinks he's a winner
It's no surprise for me that the 12 YO is gonna win this poll, for what it's worth.
But I myself like the 16 YO also very much
If it means that much to you, PP, I'll vote for the 12, just so you can feel validated!
I have in fact opened my bottle of 25 (#268 of 9,000) this very evening. And...I really like it! I like it a lot. It is of course not the peat bomb that the younger expressions are, and probably it isn't as deep as one would hope for in a 25. Frodo Factor? No, probably not worth what I paid for it. But that's water over the dam. I'm going to get along very well with this bottle, I think.
Well mr. T. you have to vote for the 12, because the distiller's edition is not a part of this poll
And yes it means a lot to me. I tasted the 12 Y last monday for the first time (tongue in cheek, which is not an easy thing to do) and I like it very much. Off course i like to share this feeling with other people
Friday I will open my bottle of Lagavulin 1988 Distillers edition. Perhaps you are right that this member of the lagavulin family is the one to prefer. I'll let you know
The amount of peat in a whisky determines does not determine its quality, is there a bit of that going on here?
I'll be the first to state the obvious that the 12yo CS is a peatier whisky than the 16yo, but the 16yo just has so much more going on. The best whiskies are those that offer some complexity, those that hit you on various levels.
For me personally, (and hey, I realise this is all subjective), the 12yo CS is a delicious punch of peat, iodine, and seaside brutality, but I don't think there's much depth after that.
Lawrence wrote:It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but a lot of people expect the peat 'punch' to increase with age.
I was lucky enough to try a dram of 40yo Bunnahabhainn from the days when they still peated their stuff. There was a really dry, smoky flavour - especially on the finish. If peat does diminish with age, I wonder what their young spirit must have been like in those days.
Something else about the Lagavulin 12. I read in tasting notes on a forum that the label of the Laga 12 says "drink 1 part laga 12 with 2 parts water". Seems a little too wet, isn't it?
I drank it with just a little shot of water, and I loved it. Before that I tried it without water. That was a little bit of a rough experience, but still enjoyable.
I don't have the Laga 12 in my private collection, so I can try it at home. How do you drink your Laga 12? With or without water?
I am completely 100% off watering my whiskies unless I have such a sore throat that it actually burns on the way down in which case I probably shouldn't be drinking it anyhow...
I sometimes add 2 or 3 drops of water to "open up" the whisky. And I like to experiment with CS bottelings that I taste for the 1st time.
I think there are some whiskys that can use a bit of water, especially for the nose. When bottled at CS I think the nose is sometimes too alcoholic/closed. It's a pity if we don't smell the beauty of some whisky's because the alcohol is too dominantly present when sniffing.
There's only one whisky so far that tastes better with some water. The Glenfarclas 105 (which is as subjective as usual )
PeatPirate wrote:I think there are some whiskys that can use a bit of water, especially for the nose. When bottled at CS I think the nose is sometimes too alcoholic/closed. It's a pity if we don't smell the beauty of some whisky's because the alcohol is too dominantly present when sniffing.
I believe blenders water whisky down to 15% and sniff it rather than taste it. That's what Noel Sweeney from Cooley does, anyway. Probably common practice. Was there something in whisky mag about this?
Having said all this, I think it's time for me to make another round of watering experiments.
I now almost never use water, and the phrase "opening up" is a complete mystery to me.
I agree wholeheartedly.
As I posted elsewhere, I recently had to wade my way through 13 SMWS samples to assess them and decide which ones were worth ordering for the Australian branch.
I was very careful to analyse each whisky, one at a time...nose, palate, finish, and then repeat the exercise after adding a few drops of water.
I can say with confidence that only one whisky appeared to improve with the addition of water. So a success rate of 1 in 13 is hardly inspiring!
I used to believe that a few drops of water would "open up a whisky" if its nose was tightly locked, but I'm not even sure of that anymore. Two of the SMWS malts had noses that were very locked and difficult to find or recognise any obvious descriptors. The addition of water only dulled the nose further and made my task harder.
I think, and I could be wrong, that water changes the surface tension. It would also heat the whisky, via heat of dissolution. There are other ways of heating whisky, of course, and the net effect would be different according to the temperature of the water used.
Anyway, I think the only real change is to the nose.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests