Bowmore consistancy?

I know the argument of the Bowmore FWP borders on religious beliefs in regard of it existing, but I have had 2 experiences with it. Once with Legend, and once with the 12 year.

However, those were both miniatures. And last winter I bought a packaging of a full size bottling of Mariner with 3 minis with it: Dawn, Dusk and Darkest. I really enjoyed the Mariner, as well as the Dawn and Dusk. The Darkest is the last of the bunch that I'm saving. I was very sorry to see them go!

I also had a mini recently of the 12, and was really surprised at how good it was, so I was at a loss.

So I guess what I'm asking is have there been any reported experiences with Bowmore FWP lately? I've really warmed up to Bowmore in the last year, and enjoy their experimentation, and would like to continue that!

Reply to
disavowed
Loading thread data ...

It's been years. I remember the FWP fondly. That perfume--that soap. But alas, the religion has lost its icon. LONG LIVE FWP!!!!

But seriously, my current Bowmore 12 (I don't remember when I picked up this particular bottle--it could have been anytime within the last 3 or 4 years) is so gently luscious, and so cleanly sumptious in a rich perfect peat way that no-one could ask any more.

Any Legend I've had in the last few years have also been clean--but they do not by any means have the class of the 12. They are hard to enjoy neat--and hard to mix with anything.

My personal theory is that the Dawn contains some of the true essence of FWP--perhaps the sort of thing that once found its way into the general product. My Dusk (claret cask) is a bizarre whisky product, but one I love. It works for me, but the Dawn, um, don't.

Reply to
Douglas W Hoyt

I don't go through a lot of Bowmore. I was developing my SM tastes back when reports of FWP were rampant, Bushido posted here regularly and the world was a little younger. My first Bowmore tasted soapy and perfumy and I never really got into the Bowmore habit. But I currently have a Bowmore 12 and a McClelland's Islay (young Bowmore) on hand, and they're clean as a whistle. I haven't had a whiff of FWP for maybe five years or so.

bill

Reply to
bill van

Fuck you [name], prove it or die!

Reply to
Doesnotcompute

Well, some new excrement has arrived in a.d.s-w!

{plonk}

-- Larry

Reply to
pltrgyst

I'm not sure if you're being serious, or joking, I was merely replying in a style from "the old days", a poster, particularly prone to responding on threads about FWP. Perhaps I should have added a smiley for you to recognise the tongue in cheekness.

nevermind.

Reply to
Doesnotcompute

And so very intelligently done, as well.

Civility, thy name is mudd.

Reply to
nick

PLONK!

Reply to
n_cramerSPAM

Thanks for the comments, that's reassuring. I have really begun to enjoy these expressions, and I wasn't looking forward to playing Russian roulette with the FWP.

I'm surprised Brett hasn't chimed in on this topic...I remember him to be a FWP unbeliever! Is he still posting, I wonder?

Anyway, thanks to all! Good news.

Reply to
disavowed

I'm sure we'd be hearing something if anyone was experiencing FWP lately.

I can't remember what his view on FWP was. There were certainly people who either couldn't taste it, or didn't mind what they were tasting. But some very respectable palates did notice it, and so did mine.

Brett pops up here from time to time, but hasn't posted regularly for a while. Traffic is way down from a few years ago, unfortunately.

cheers.

bill

Reply to
bill van

Don't have much use for FWP but had to chime in to agree that the Bowmore 12 is a tasty treat. I'm particularly fond of the way it cleanly compliments some cigars in ways that my favorite heavy peaty malts can't touch.

Reply to
Michael Barrett

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.