Is it destined to become a classic ?
I rate it at around 89-90 points ( a few more drams to make my final decision). On par with my ratings for the 10 yr old.
Good typical Ardbeg nose with some iodine, coal and sweet lemon barley, a bit more agressive than the 10yr. The taste follows the nose with some tough peat and lemon salt, some spice, and followed by a long coal/peat finish.
Does anybody know the future availability of the Beist, will there be another release at 17 or will it remain 16 and be changed to a 1991 vintage
http://www.thedailydram.com/2006/10/12/ ... nam-beist/
strangely, the Beist occurs to me as a great dram only at certain ocassions, which i have not yet identified.
and on those days, i'd agree that it's within the high 80s.
then again, i'm pretty new to single malts and the Beist being my first Ardbeg.
Reviewed in issue 61 :
Nose:Weighty, phenolic. Foggy coal smoke, then more lifted and complex. Arbroath smokie, tar.
Palate: A lick of cream brings to mind an alcoholic Cullen skink. Shows maturity along with toasted almond, biscuity cereal. Not overly heavy, a good tongue-coating texture with persistent smoke.
Finish: Caramelised, smooth, then smoke returns.
Comments: A welcome addition to the range.
Score : 8
Nose: Ashy, smoky and lemony. Seaweed, apple, mint and tea tree oil. Intense, snarling and complex.
Palate: Not quite the assault I’d expected but delicious all the same. Lots of sweetness, tea tree, ash and a vegetal/autumn leaf flavour.
Finish: Smoked meats and a persistent seaweed.
Comments: For all its chest-beating, smoking-gun aroma, the palate is softer and more approachable. Compelling.
I tried the beastie at an excellent whisky bar in Munich, just before Christmas. In fact I was GIVEN the dram for free by the landlord as he wanted my opinion on it.
I was utterly disappointed.
It appeared watery and lacking in body and flavour.
I am a big fan of the 17y/o, 1977, 1975 and the 1974's that I have tried. This beastie was a long way behind any of them.
When I told him what I thought of it, he laughed and then agreed with me!
But that's just my opinion, based upon one single tasting.
On that same evening I tried various drams and the beastie was by far the most disappointing.
It was this same evening when I tried the PC5 - now that IS something rather different and good. It definitely needs water as it's just too overpowering without, but it certainly makes a lasting impression.
Xavier wrote:.....Compared it two days ago to the Laphroaigh QC (which I really love too, and selling for not half of the price of the ANB)
Exactly - the ANB at £44 is over-priced. I tried it at Whisky Fringe - nothing special.
Give me a Laphroaig QC plus a bottle of the standard Ardbeg Ten for the same price anyday.
'The beast' makes the price of Lagavulin look like a bargain!
It is very good, rich and complex, but quite different from the 1970s versions or the 1997+ ones.
The Ten or the still young are quite differen from the AND and in the end, just buy the one that you like the best.
By no means bad by any standards, but as Ardbegs go I can't say it's outstanding. nor does it have anything distinctive enough for me to enjoy it more than the 10YO. In fact I have to agree with this from Leither: "Give me a Laphroaig QC plus a bottle of the standard Ardbeg Ten for the same price anyday. "
It's twice the price of the ten, but not twice as good. No better, no worse.
But the 1977...a couple of sips and you know you're in that special territory where it continues to unfold, and you know why you paid the extra cash.
Is it twice as good as the 10? Of course not. That's not how whisky economics works. Is the 1965 70 odd times better than the 10? I've not had the pleasure but I'm guessing it ain't...
There is a complexity to it that raises it well above the 10 though. Would I choose 1 bottle of ANB over 2 bottles of 10? Probably not. Would I choose 1 bottle of ANB and a bottle of 10 over 3 bottles of 10? Absolutely. Vive la difference!
I'm sure there was logic in that argument when I began typing it...
just look at what theyve brought out since they bought over glenmorangie, all the single cask arbeg, very expensvie, the margaux glenmorangie very overpriced, the ardbeg 1965,and now the ANB. this is just the start, there going to push ardbeg and glenmorangie into there premium stables, right enough, isnt everything premium with LVHM., and those own supermarket bottlings that get done at broxburn, thats not going to be going on for much longer. if i worked at their bottling plant in broaxburn, id start looking through the job ad's. the plant is too big for just doing their OB whiskies etc, thats why they do the supermarket stuff and the indy bottles, lvmh knows it would be cheaper just to outsource the bottling of glenmorangie to round the corner at broxburn bottlers than to keep the whole bottling plant they have for there own needs.
It's a 16 year old distillery bottled Islay. The best price I have seen is £44. The universally acknowledged fabulous 16 year old Islay is Lagavulin, that is usually £36. Paying that hurts but I bend over and take the pain
So maybe a very, very, very occasional bottle of ANB. I also think Uigeadael is overpriced. The Ardbeg Ten, Still Young and Lord of the Isles are fine, but most of the others just hurt a bit when my wallet tries to bite and stay shut
If Laphroaig was as affordable as everyone states I would have a bottle of the 30 on my shelf at all times because it is great whisky. I will agree that the 10 is a great price most of the time. But this may be a way to funnel people to their higher cost products.
The beist is a limited edition bottling that sells at what people are willing to pay.If laphroaig cam out with a 16 yr old limited edition bottle for the same price I would buy it to try in a heartbeat.
You can get the 15yo Laphroaig for $61
In contrast Lagavulin 30yo is $499 and the standard 16yo is $62
They released the Ardbeg AnB (16yo) for $110
The previous shipment of Ardbeg 10yo that Washington state received(which was early of 2005) got sold for $45 a bottle. The most recent shipment of the 10yo came in late fall of 2006 and sold for $58 a bottle.
So I would say that Laphroaig in general is a much more economical malt. And I feel like the Ardbeg prices are quickly reaching rarefied air.
Hopefully it is just my crazy state
It'd taken half the bottle to really convince me, but when my neighbour dropped in to celebrate clutching a brand new A'bunadh batch 17, I said "try this first!"
as the first dram of the night (as opposed to following others which is how I'd previously tried it) its qualities were more apperent.
As someone pointed out, its complexity lifts it above the ten. darker flavours, in a word. We had a tiny sip of ten to follow - and that really brought it home! I shall enjoy "the other half" much more! Really good...
...but it still didn't "lip my tights"(quote from 'lost in Translation' - anyone see it?)like the 1977.
At the price I probably won't buy another. But this was definitely worth the experience.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests