CS vs diluted strength?


As my time drinking malts has increased, my taste has changed to not only appreciate cask strength malts (at first I couldn't handle them), but to strongly prefer them. For example, two of my current favorites are Laphroig CS and Aberlour A'bunadh. I know these are exceptional malts, but according to my taste, they sink their respective competition. I can't figure out if this is because they are actually superior malts or if I have simply developed a preference for CS strength. Thoughts? Recommendations for other CS malts?
John
Reply to
NoSPAAMderbyjohn

skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I seem to have developed the same general preference.
I haven't seen it elsewhere, but Phil Cousins wrote the following in alt.drinks.scotch-whisky 25.05.2005:
"Anything with a strength of over about 47% by volume won't have been chill filtered because at that strength even when chilled the esters remain in solution and can't be filtered out. So generally cask strength whisky isn't chill filtered."
If he's right, then this may have at least something to do with it?
I know that Laphroaig CS - one of my favourites - is explicitly unchillfiltered.
Anyway, comparing Laphroaig 10 yo CS with the 10 yo 40% abv, I find them so qualitatively different - even when diluting the CS - that I am sure it can't be the same whisky at different strength. They probably select casks specially for the CS.
The Aberlour A'bunadh is a great dram. I haven't had very many Cask Strength whiskys, but if you like A'bunadh, you may also enjoy the Glenfarclas 105. And if you like the Laphroaig CS, you will probably appreciate the Lagavulin Special Release 2002 CS. Personally I loved it, but it's quite pricy, though. On the cheaper side is Caol Ila CS, also a good dram, but not quite in the same league as the above mentioned. And how about Ardbeg Uigeadail, I haven't tried it myself, but it's on my wish-list, I see it is generally very highly regarded. My own next CS will be the Springbank 10 yo 100 proof, which I'm looking forward to pick up in about a week from now.
Gunnar
Reply to
Gunnar Thormodsaeter

I'm with you guys. The first CS whiskey I tried was Macallan a few years back. I hardly enjoyed it to say the least. Since I've started drinking a lot of Bourbon, which tends to have a higher proof, I can handle the CS scotches a lot easier.
I have Laphroaig and A'bunadh and enjoy both immensely. Looking forward to my next venture.
Tim
Reply to
DrinkyBanjo

Cask strength is the way to go. I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about anything diluted to 40 - 43%.
You can always add water if you want, but you can never take it out once someone else has put it in.
I am always on the lookout for those rare cask strength bottlings where the alcohol has evaporated naturally to well below 50%.
That takes the edge off the alcohol burn, without diluting the flavour components.
Al Jones
Reply to
Al Jones

I think the Caol Ila CS is the best of the lot, followed by Ardbeg Uigeadail and Laphroaig. I'm not sure you can go wrong with any CS Islay, if you like Islays to begin with.
Reply to
SleepyWeevil

Cask strength come in all kinds of alcohol percentages.
standard filling strength is around 63% but some are put in the cask at the natural strength from the spirit receiver which is normally around 70%. That explains the gretaer than 60 cask strengtsh I think
Some casks loose a lot relatively fast. I know of an Ardnbeg 8-10y at around 48% (great whisky)
I have a Bruichladdich smws 15y at the same strength
some really old cask strength are at 40%
I agree on Al, that cask strength with a low alcohol percentage often are some of the greatest whiskies for exactly the same reasons he mentions
If you have to add water to standard strength whiskies I think you should for time being avoid any 60+ ones at least. Heck it took me years to cope with those and I still have probems now and again
Macdeffe
Reply to
Steffen Bräuner

Coming off the stills, new spirit can be 70+ %, but is usually diluted to 63.5% for maturation. I have heard half a dozen plausible stories as to why this number was chosen, but will let that pass here. 63.5% is pretty the industry standard, except for a period in the late 70's - early 80's when there as a significant shortage of casks. Some distillers made up for it was by storing whisky at full strength. This explains why some 25-30 lear old whiskies maintain an unusually high abv.
I have no problem with people watering their whisky. If I can get it cask strength and others can water it down to their taste, that is a good situation all around. But like I said, you can't take water out once it's been put in.
Al J.
Reply to
Al Jones

I tried both my Laphroaig CS and Aberlour A'bunadh last night after I read through these posts. The Aberlour has a very nice "red wine" nose to it and the taste isn't bad as well, very smooth.
However, the Laphroaig is super pungent and I loved every sip. I will always make sure I have a bottle of this around.
Reply to
DrinkyBanjo

I tend to prefer one-off CS malts rather than regular distillery malts, just one of my little peccadilloes. On the subject of water in CS malts, I nearly always taste the malt as it comes, and enjoy the flavours, and then a little Scottish spring water, and only Scottish spring water (The water I use is Highland Spring which I believe is the same water as used in the distillation of Tullibardine whisky). This gives, sometimes, a whole range of flavours to savour. And each bottle tends to be at its best with a differing amount of water.
I am enjoying currently a bottle of 23yo 61.3% bottle of Glenury Royal from the rare Malt Selection. This was distilled in 1971 and bottled in 1994.
Roger
Reply to
Renko

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:56:44 +0000 (UTC), "Renko" wrote:
What's wrong with preferring unusual bottlings?
-- Larry
Reply to
pltrgyst

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.