Dalmore Cigar Malt


I've been curious about this for a while but haven't yet quite caved in and
bought a bottle. I know it's supposed to compliment a cigar but, as a
non-smoker, am I likely to enjoy it?
I suppose what I'm asking is: what's it similar to?
Thanks.
Jim
Reply to
Jim
It's pretty unique -not really like any other Dalmore I've tried.
My go-to cigar malt used to be Mortlach 16 but I can't get it locally anymore and have not seen a bottle for some years. Some of the same sweet citrus and sherry in a complex mix. The other malt I particularly like with my cigars is Macallan 12. It's probably the closest to the Dalmore in character. If you like a hint of smoke, the Highland Park 18 shows some of the same balance of sweetness, citrus and sherry that I find in the Dalmore and Macallan but with that whif of peat.
All are great with cigars -not too smokey and not too dry.
Reply to
Michael Barrett
That's a really good description. As a non-cigar-smoker too never bought a second bottle of the Dalmore cigar malt even though it was priced in the upper $20's, since it had those characteristics that Michael Barrett describes, but other than that it seemed a bit simple and a bit cloying (more finish than complexity?).
Reply to
Douglas W Hoyt
In article , ...
I just thought it was nothing more nor less than a young Dalmore. To be honest I thought it was a bit of a con - a way of persuading us to buy a whisky that isn't really ready. There seems to have been a lot of this going on recently and Dalmore is hardly to be blamed to jumping on the bandwagon. Am I entirely wrong (I probably am) in suspecting that these malts are a response to the sudden rise in popularity of single malts and a corresponding strain on the supply of the standard bottlings?
I guess I'm just too old fashioned to appreciate a new approach. It will be interesting to see whether these young and very young malts remain popular long term. Time will tell.
Reply to
Pete Monsta
I haven't had the Dalmore, but I have a young Bowmore ("Legend") and it's really not that bad at all. It's not the same league as the Dawn (probably my favorite of theirs), but if I recall it was on sale for TEN DOLLARS! I should have gotten three. It will certainly remain popular if it remains in that price range. ;)
Reply to
Terran Melconian
In article ,
There's a very young Bowmore sold in many places as McClelland's Islay. It's unmistakably a Bowmore and not one of my favorites.
There are some young Lagavulins out there under independent brand names. I have tasted The Ileach and the Dun Bheagan, and they're terrific if you like the tarry, smoky, peaty and in-your-face elements of Islays.
I have seen Finlaggan described the same way, but haven't had a chance to try it.
bill
Reply to
bill van
In article ,
I confess I've acquired a taste for younger whiskies. Ardbeg 'Very Young' and 'Still Young' are very good indeed, as is a 7yo Laphroaig Signatory bottling I have. Older whiskies sometimes seem to lose some of their 'teeth', if you see what I mean.
Jim
Reply to
Jim
"Jim" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@odin.magrathea.local...
,
That's about what I read some 30 years ago - malt whiskys very seldom improve beyond 12 years. It was said that they go 'slimy'... So, older and expensiver doesn't say they are always better. Anders
Reply to
Anders Tørneskog
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:16:31 +0100, "Anders Tørneskog" wrote:
I like the "teeth" characterization -- very apt. In my experience, about 50% of SMs "improve" beyond 18 yrs, and 50% don't. Those that improve seem to retain enough character that the mellowing effect of age in whatever type of barrel doesn't extract all those "teeth."
The only big name whisky that I haven't cared for at even 18 yrs, let alone older, is HP. The 12 is so good, but everything older has been a disappointment.
-- Larry
Reply to
pltrgyst
If you look at the ratings in Jackson's book (not the definitive last word, but indicative), you'll see older bottles will hold their ratings up to about 20 years, then begin to show lower numbers. They still have maturing characteristics that are different but not always better than the younger malts.
Having said that, if you check the Malt Maniac 2006 awards, you'll see that they give top honors in almost every category to older, expensive, difficult to obtain bottlings, which is very frustrating to those of us who have trouble finding a Talisker 10 yr. or a Laphroig cask.
So it depends on the whisky.
Reply to
mdavis
In article ,
I just opened a Aberlour 15 which is good but I have to say not $20 better than the good old 10 yo Aberlour. It seems to me that 12 to 15 is the sweet spot, and after that, except in special cases, you are paying for the age on the label. I suppose if I had the funds to partake in a 30 yo more often than once a decade, I might have a bit more refined palate.
Reply to
caruso81
I went back to my retailer to replenish my supply of Abelour 10 and found only a 12 yr. Not opened yet. I'll let you know how it compares. I also have a 15 yr. unopened. Might be an interesting blind tasting.
Reply to
mdavis
I like both the 12 and the 15 finding the 10 to be just a bit "bright" (sort of tip of the tongue alcohol burn and a short taste and fast finish).
Reply to
ajames54

Site Timeline Threads

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.