question about DL Laphroaig "single cask"

Good evening,

I was just looking at my unopened Douglas Laing & Co. bottle of Laphroaig. I had earlier taken for granted that it was "cask strength". I've now noticed some ambiguity in the labeling on the box...so I have questions...and maybe someone here has answers? This is what is printed on the box and on the bottle (they both have identical labels):

"The Old Malt Cask 50% Single Malt Scotch Whisky Single Cask Bottling Distilled at Laphroaig Distillery Single Malt Scotch Whisky Distilled 1987 February Bottled 2003 April Aged 16 Years No Chill Filtration. No Colouring Bottled at our Preferred Strength of 50% Alc/Vol

*A Bottling From One Cask DL REF 613* This Bottle is One of 294 Bottles Filled From Cask" (There is a little extra, irrelevant fine-print below the quoted material above)

Now I'm going to sound like a lawyer with my questions below. (Though I don't mean to! I'm not a lawyer...I'm just curious whether or not this was filled at its cask strength....having not been cut. Not that this whisky being cask strength totally matters, because a good whisky is a good whisky, regardless of formality...but I'm just curious). For DL to bottle this whisky at their "preferred strength" of 50% right from the cask sounds rare. I've always heard of cask strength whisky typically being upper 50's to 60's % ABV. Maybe they are saying that their taster tried it from the cask, and it really was 50% ABV in the cask, and it was perfect for bottling as is, so, as a result, 50% is now their preferred strength for this particular whisky (and thus is it truly "cask strength")? The language "one of 294 bottles filled from cask" doesn't say that it was filled DIRECTLY from the cask...which makes me wonder if maybe this was not filled directly from the cask, nor was it filled at the same strength (uncut). I get the impression that it is truly uncut and at cask strength, but the slight ambiguities on the label make me wonder. BUT...I don't know the size of the cask, and 294 bottles sounds like a small number of bottles to be obtained from a single cask...making me wonder if this could account for the lower ABV% than I would have expected for a (suspected) "cask strength" whisky. (more whisky/alcohol has evaporated, allowing fewer bottles from that single cask, all at a lower ABV%).

Do any of you have any ideas about this?

Thanks, Sean

Reply to
Sean
Loading thread data ...

[snip]

[snip}

Yes that's possible. But you can be reasonably sure it didn't happen that way. They've added just a tiny little bit of water to bring it to a standardized ABV, but it's still a high proof, higher than typical bottlings. Why would they do that? Maybe to bring some consistency to their bottlings. Or because they really feel 50% ABV is an ideal strength. Or maybe something as simple as making the labels simpler and cheaper to print (or pre-print) - they could have a parcel of several casks distilled the same month and year, differing only in their individual ABV's. Consecutively numbered labels could be preprinted and used as needed with out having to have a seperate label for each cask. Multiple sets make the printing even cheaper. Or possibly there are tax issues related to bottling strength...

The bigger issue here is that there doesn't seem to be a clear legal definition of "cask strength" - at least not the kind of clear definition we'd like to see. Is cask strenght the strength of the particular whisky when it was taken out of the cask? Or is it just a strength which would be typically found in a hypothetical cask of whisky? Is "Natural Cask Strength" any clearer? Then what exactly would an unnatural cask strength be? The gold standard here is probably the word "undiluted", since you couldn't dilute the whisky with water and still call it "undiluted". But some bottlers that do not dilute their whisky with any water at bottling still only call them "cask strength".

50% ABV is a possible undiluted cask strength but it would be a little unusual to be so low after only 16 years. A few years ago Bowmore bottled a very old undiluted whisky at around 40% ABV because if the proof had dropped any lower they wouldn't have been able to bottle it at all. 40% ABV has been the minimum allowable strength for whisky since 1990.
294 bottles isn't really that low a number for a single cask bottling, especially for a cask strength or high proof edition. Casks vary in size; I've seen some bottlings which were considerably smaller. It's part of what makes those bottlings so special. You've joined an exclusive club: fewer than 300 people will ever own a bottle of that whisky - even fewer if some fellows buy more than one!

Bart

Reply to
Bart

Hey, I'm part of that club! I tried it for the first time this past weekend. Haven't published my notes because I want to come back to it and try it solo. We were doing a mini vertical of Laphroaig and my impressions may have been muddied because I was too busy enjoying as opposed to being a critical drinker.

Reply to
Jeff Folloder - (TES)

Hi Bart,

Thanks for all of the info. It sounds as though this bottle is not what most in here would call "cask strength". (I've seen some bourbon sold as "Straight-from-the-Barrel" (Booker's), which sounds pretty clear as to what's in that bottle).

Thanks, Sean

Reply to
Sean

I would also suggest that Laphroaig's own cask strength bottling would give you a clue to whether yours has had extra water added.

regards

Esmond

Reply to
Esmond

Thanks for your reply Esmond. I asked about the Laphroaig cask strength and was told that it probably wouldn't be here until later in the year. :( I'll be looking forward to it...

Sean

Reply to
Sean

A friend just brought a bottle back from the UK. I'm looking forward to tasting it sooe... before it evaporates like my bottles always seem to ;)

Reply to
Anonymous

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.