I have managed to develop a taste in the past year or so for single malt Scotch - enjoying it neat, generally when I'm on-the-road.
To date I have purchased only one bottle - a Macallan 18. It is very nice indeed, though perhaps a bit sweet for me, ultimatley. I am seeking recommendations (I'm not a bargin-hunter) for the top tier
12/15/18 year-old's that can be described as particularly "peety" and "smokey" in nature.
I actually kind of like the Glenfiddich ("what a novice!"), which has been described by more than one in this group as the Budwieser of single-malts. I could not drink a Budwieser if you held a gun to my head (black-n-tan or strong micro-brew, please).
On 25 Nov 2003 11:46:05 -0800, the alleged VirtualSean, may have posted the following, to alt.drinks.scotch-whisky:
Hiya,
That's one of my favorite malts, alas it's not peaty or smoky.
As far as smokey goes, it's tough to beat the "bog standard" Talisker
10 year-old. My first reaction to tasting this was "Wow, barbecued whisky... Cool." The 17 year-old Distillers Edition Talisker that I tasted didn't seem to be as smokey as the 10.
Try the Laphroaig's (spit), I hate them myself, but my roomate is an addict)), if you can handle the phenols. But for a really nice and peaty malt, IMNSHO, try the Ardbeg 17 year-old.
Hey, me too! A nice tall glass of Glenfiddich and water (1:8) really hits the spot when I've just finished mowing the lawn.
Err, pop by here next spring or summer, and work on scraping and sanding my eaves and soffets, or replacing my gutters for a while. You'll likely change your mind about that Budwieser. It's *cold*, wet and available. It's not really bad beer, it's not good beer. If necessary I have a gun that I can hold to your head.
So, how do you feel about the Glen Morangie [Port|Maderia|Sherry] wood finishes? I rather like the Port and Maderia versions (but think that the Balvenie Portwood is a tastier dram).
Regards, Rob
-- "Or better yet, use the Jack Daniels `shot and a chaser' glass. An honest admission of the true nature of Tennessee whiskey."
If I can tell you what you want, what you really really want, I think it is the Ardbeg 10, to be quite honest.
Failing that, try the Laphroaig 10.
Talisker, Lagavulin, and Caol Isla are also nice recommendations.
Don't worry about the "10" aspect--these are enjoyable whiskies. If you want peaty/smoky, then older is not necessarily always better (though there may be some nice vintages that are older).
Starting off very nicely then. The Mac 18 can be a very, very good whisky.
Robert Crowe has already mentioned the Talisker, and Douglas has mentioned Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Lagavulin, and Caol Isla; all are excellent and very peaty whiskies.
Bowmore whiskies are also well peated, but not quite so much as the above. They have almost too many versions though; look for the
15 "Mariner", the 17yo, or the 12yo.
Backing off of the most extreme peat monsters, almost anything from Springbank is worth trying if you can find it, except maybe the
10yo without embossed lettering on the shoulder of the bottle. These are peatier than most, but peat smoke isn't dominant - they have many flavors beside peat and smoke.
And Highland Park is quite nice. Michael Jackson (the whisky author not the musician) calls it the best "all-arounder" among Scotch malts, and both the 12yo and the 18yo are very nice. The HP 18yo is also attractively priced compared to most 18yo malts.
above. They have almost too many versions though; look for the 15 "Mariner", the 17yo, or the 12yo.
I am burying this comment in a sub-sub post in a off-topic, but I have been sampling my Bowmore 12 vs. my Bowmore 15, and the one thing that the 15 has that the 12 doesn't, besides more density and heft, is a solid, nose-altering whiff of FWP. I DO think that FWP is a quality that Bowmore probably somehow tried to cultivate, to provide a floral fullness and richness to the Bowmore line--and may have since given up trying to propogate, because of the strong reaction from people who once loved Bowmore for it's cleaner and pure-peatier expressions.
The 15 is still enjoyable, drinkable, and worth seeking out, but it has that odd pungent violetetty/soapy tweak as it first hits the palate that characterizes the horrendous and undrinkable things (mostly 12-years old) I've had in the last decade. I would buy the 15 again--but that odd perfume twist is unmistakably still there in this whisky (for better or worse), I am somewhat consternated to say. But it is there only as an adjunct--not as a huge whallop that gives the whisky all of it's (fairly offensive) character, as was the case in the Bowmore 12 40% European releases a little while ago. This perfumey sniff gives the 15 a bit of elegance, a bit or richness, and a bit of oddness, in equal proportions. People may LIKE this quality, but I think it is a strange quality. Though I will buy another bottle of the 15 if it is still available at $29.99 at Elm Grove Liquors.
Point well taken, it's still an issue I suppose. My one and only Mariner was very good. Fresh, clean, and salty (if we didn't all know better). Unsherried, and not perfumey.
My last 12yo had been on the seller's shelf for some time, and did have a perfumey off note - but it wasn't so bad as to ruin the whisky entirely. At first, in fact, it had a very appealing and complex nose, but the whisky seemed to "die" before I was half way through the bottle. And the off note that was at first just an irritating gnat became a mosquito and then a horse fly.
But it never became an elephant.
I'm intrigued by your idea that FWP may have been an intentional component at one time. I haven't seen that expressed before; it's usually attributed to some kind of error: cleansers in the bottling equipment for instance. I have wondered if it didn't come from an error in the bottle manufacturing process. I have gotten soapy whisky from producers besides MB. But only MB seems to have bottled that strange sickly-sweet aroma. If it were intentional there would be a lot of it about. If it were accidental there would be only a few instances of it. And it seems to lie somewhere between common and rare - it's occassional.
manufacturing process. I have gotten soapy whisky from producers besides MB. But only MB seems to have bottled that strange sickly-sweet aroma. If it were intentional there would be a lot of it about. If it were accidental there would be only a few instances of it. And it seems to lie somewhere between common and rare - it's occassional.
For me, there was a decade of blight on Bowmore. It started when I bought a bottle at an Illinois liquor store in the early 1990's. I had bought maybe 3 or 4 bottles in the 1980's, and they were all clean and had a deep-peat finish that was one of a kind. Then I got this bottle and it was bizarre. I hated it. I kept trying it, and it was so unusually, blatantly off-tasting--truly sickly. I was really sad (this was before I had ever been on Internet, read about FWP, or heard a negative word about Bowmore) and (I had never experienced anything like this with a whisky) I wanted to put the bottle into a mailer and send it back to the distillery. This was a murky, goofy, sordid mess of a whisky.
After that I dared try it again a couple times in the 1990's and it was still this bottled perfume whisky, which made it silky, in some ways, but very, very strange--and ultimately undrinkable. I've given away a LOT of
1990's Bowmore. I DID get a sampler pack a couple years back from a Chicago retailer (Legend, 12, 17, 21) in the late 1990's which was interesting and good--and not too goofy. And I had read that the European
12's (at 40%) were particularly the worst--and mine certainly were--this was slimy sweet bathwater whisky, with kiddie-shampoo flavors predominating.
And it was utterly, utterly unlike anything I had had in the 1980's--a completely different product. If this was some small aberration in the production line (e.g., soap in the bottles)--then it went on for a very, very long time without anybody doing anything about it. This makes very little sense to me.
The 12 is back to being a clean whisky. And the Bowmore Legend (also McLellands Islay) that used to be truly gaggable stuff, is now, I think, the best value on the market. My 15 still has some odd notes, but there are still some very nice things about it. And hopefully the 15 will only get cleaner over time.
Well, following the recommendations of the group, I went for the Laphroaig 10. Man Alive! Zoot Allures! Smokey/Peaty, rich... I think I'm in love! One dram quickly led to a second (I stopped there).
I am axious to try the Laphroaig 15 - experience a (presumably) slightly more mellow version of the same, for comparison. Nonetheless, I think it'll be Ardbeg 10 next.
This drink positively registered with me. Thanks much for the recommendations.
snipped-for-privacy@FastDial.net (VirtualSean) wrote
You're in serious trouble, because the Laphroaig 10 experience grows on you, or at least it has in my case. If you initially loved it, you're really going to love it about half way through the bottle. Let me know if you discover something contrary. Enjoy.
I fear you're right about that. I'm going enjoy a drop or two this evening, and I'm looking forward to it WAY too much. I've got a fine CAO cigar to accompany the dram too! The only thing missing is the female couterpart - or she could show-up around midnight as she's been known to do - nice!
Whatever. I will let you know if the Laphroaig continues to grow on me or if I being to recoil from it for some reason (though I truly suspect the former).
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.