side-by-side comparisons

Hi Sean,

As Bart would say, welcome to the discussion -- it's always great to have new posters sharing their thoughts and opinions. I have to say that when it comes to recommendations and tasting notes, I personally place the greatest weight on the opinions of other enthusiasts and have yet to be disappointed.

While it is always useful to see what the "experts" have to say, for the most part I find they often launch into esoterica that is well beyond the realm of

Just to interject, I realize that most out there consider winter to be the prime time for Islays whiskies... but I never seem to lean this way. Somehow Islays bring to mind the wind and the surf coming off the coast in the summertime, whereas I reach for a sherried whisky more often during the winter months. That said, I have recently gone against my grain and been enjoying both the Ardbeg Committee Reserve (that is unfortunately sold out) and the new Uigeadail bottling, and high recommend both if you should ever come across them, or know someone who's going overseas and doesn't mind being your mule...

Secondly if you enjoy Signatory's Vintage Islay and you're a Talisker fan, you should keep your eye out for their bastard Talisker, labeled as Vintage Island 8 Year Old, particularly at cask strength.

As I post, I am in the midst of cleansing my palate with a small piece of 99% pure cocoa chocolate followed by a few sips of filtered water. Pure cocoa chocolate is something a number of blenders use to erase the footprints of a previous whisky and I find it works wonders although it is not the most palatable. Otherwise if you're being more informal, some bread and/or canapes work fine. In truth I don't normally do this unless I'm being quite serious and studious about my whisky; tonight I'm doing some head to head comparisons of a private cask of Springbank against some indie and OB expressions, so I'm looking to get as clear an assessment as possible of what I'm tasting. (Home alone, what can I say?...)

Seems hard to go wrong with Caol Ilas these days and if you're open to a different interpretation of Laphroaig, the 15 Year Old OB is divine IMO but not the same experience at all as the 10.

Boston isn't that far from the Canadian border so if you're visiting Ontario (or, again, know someone who is) you may be interested in trying the Talisker Distillers Edition. It's Talisker finished off in an Amoroso sherry cask and although I don't believe the latest releases were as good as the first couple, I still like it as a different take on Talisker. Some here will boo this call; a lot of people feel that the Distillers Edition series ruined some perfectly good whiskies with wine finishes. I personally think the Cragganmore DE miles ahead of the regular OB; why bother with the Dalwhinnie and (especially) the Oban finishes; Glenkinchie, well I don't really care one way or another; but the earlier versions of Talisker DE and Lagavulin DE are fabulous, the latest ones are kind of thin and stingy, particularly the Lagavulin DE 1986.

In the US though, if you are ever inclined to spend serious money on a whisky ($250) then I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to pick up the official Talisker 25 Year Old. For sure, alot of whiskies these days are overpriced because of the name or scarcity so it's easy to be skeptical about the quality you're getting at the higher end of the scale. But this particular Talisker is truly worth every last penny, it's absolute nirvana, Talisker to the nth degree but with oodles more complexity than you get with the regular 10 year old (which is a beauty of a whisky and contains some older whiskies in the mix at any rate).

Johanna

would not fully appreciate the second whisky sample due to the lingering effects of the first whisky sample]...

Here are a big bevy of thoughts:

• I have several whiskies open at a time, and SOMEtimes one is better than another one night and not the next, but 90% of the time the better whiskies (and the ones you seem to enjoy really ARE cream of the crop) eventually show their class and won't let it go; it is this undeniable pedigree that keeps manifesting itself despite tainted glasses, or dessert-stained palate, or jaded imagination that proves their mastery.
• In different circumstances (before a big dinner; after a big dinner; after not having had whisky for a week; after having had whisky three nights in a row; and worst of all: after ice cream) a whisky will impress differently. The other night I had some of my Scapa 10, which I had always hated before, on ice, after not having whisky for a couple weeks, and it was fabulous! Two nights later I had it again, and it went back to being a dull, tight, bourbon-ravished pumpkin. One FUN thing about comparing whiskies is that they WILL seem different under different circumstances--and with different fats, sugars, and chemicals floating through the body and in the saliva (to be brutally honest). (And one of the most remarkable effects I find is that not having had whisky in a long time makes them all taste great; having them the SECOND night after not having had them in a while makes for great enjoyment plus very discerning comparisons; but having them too frequently over a number of days makes the palate a bit tired and less discerning) But by and large, comparing whiskies ultimately works great--particularly if it is over different a wide variety and range of time periods--because the great stuff very much stays great. That's another reason why I decant whiskies into airline wine bottles, so I can try it again--days, weeks, months, and even years apart--side by side with whole other products. Sometimes the comparisons fluctuate, but ultimately the good stuff not only shines through, it brings back essential feelings and associations, and rare & inimitable class, with a big whallop.
• About 15 or 20 years back I kept bottles of various whiskies around and rated them on a self-devised scale--because this was before the internet, and malts weren't that big, and Michael Jackson hadn't come out with his first book, and I tried finding sources on whisky but generally couldn't--and came up with a rating system that I've just realized is as salient now as it was then (I'll dig up and post all my original summary ratings from then in a later post!): A+ absolutely phenomenal delicious irrestible always perfect A a great whisky--never disappoints A- a really class whisky with maybe a minor flaw B+ a good whisky with some really great elements B a solid, dependable, enjoyable whisky B- a good whisky, with something disappointing about it C+ a pedestrian whisky with something special to recommend it C a drinkable product but nothing special C- a whisky with obvious flaws and no obvious redemptive qualities D slime

In my experience, "A" class whiskies were ALWAYS special. Even if you had ice cream, they were better than the B whiskies if you had ice cream. My guess is that the top whiskies you said you like are pretty much all in this league. They are interesting, pleasing, assertive drams that you can reach for again and again no matter how jaded your palate gets, no matter what was in the glass before it (and some of the interesting comparisons are between different bottlings from the same distillery that don't hold up, or somehow disappoint, versus the ones that always seem to shine through).

What has bothered me about seeing "point" ratings (generally ranging from the '90's for the best product to the mid-'60's for real rotgut) is how often whiskies like Caol Ila get scores in the 70's--though for me Caol Ila is nearly always an A+, A, A- or at the very least B+ whisky. It's simply intriguing, enjoyable stuff, but people who give it "point" ratings seem to under-rate it because.......I have no idea!!!

Doing multiple comparisons (particularly over time) will put the whisky that suddenly seems wonderful, but a week later disappoints, it it's place. And it will ultimately assure world-class essence its deserved pedestal on the shelf. And, really, over time, it probably won't much matter if you rinse out the glass.

Hi Johanna,

Thank you for your response. I normally read this group daily, but I had company this weekend and thus couldn't. My replies are in-text.

summertime,

I've read about new Ardbeg bottlings, but unfortunately I don't know anyone who will be traveling overseas in the near future. I've enjoyed the Signatory Vintage Islay 5 year old (selling for $20 U.S....all prices I mention here are in U.S. dollars) as a much more affordable alternative to the pricier Lagavulin 16 year old ($60). The 5 year old tastes a little "green" to me and isn't nearly as wonderful and smokey as the 16, but for everyday drinking, the 5 year old at $20/bottle is definitely better than the Bowmore Legend (also at $20/bottle).

I didn't see the Vintage Island 8 during my last trip to the store, but I'll have to ask on my next visit. They're very receptive to requests and they just started stocking some Gordon & McPhail after I asked if they will carry their bottlings. I've never seen a cask-strength Islay bottling though.

I'm just starting to appreciate sherried whiskies (Macallan 12, etc.). I'm sipping a Highland Park 12 year old as I type this...but still, it's the Islays that really strike me.

I love the Laphroaig 15 year old OB...I forgot to mention that. The current price in my market is $60, and I actually prefer the 10 year old (approx. $40). Maybe it's my developing-pallate requesting the intensity. The Signatory UCF Caol Ila 11 year old 1991 is probably the one whisky that I've enjoyed the most of all. I currently have an un-opened bottle (Cask No.

Actually, I visited Ontario in May 2003. I wanted to pick up the Lagavulin DE 1986 (Pedro Ximinez finish), but we were running behind schedule so we didn't stop. How I regret that. I'm always interested in trying something new - hoping that if I like what I find, it will still be available for me to experience again. I probably can't expect that high-repeat-experience-probability with the independent bottlings, but I've found some greats through IB...such as Caol Ila.

The highest price I've yet paid for a whisky is $70. I am a big fan of the Talisker 10 year old OB. I'd have to think carefully if I came across the Talisker 25 year old. I'm almost willing to spend the money. I'm finding that my tastes are becoming more and more expensive, with the experience being worth the expense.

Thank you so much for your response Johanna, Sean

Hi Johanna,

In an attempt to avoid spam, the other night I changed my name and reply address to "Stinky" which shows up in my response above...I should have changed it back.

Sorry for any confusion

summertime,

Hi Douglas,

Thank you for responding! I've had visitors this past weekend so I'm behind in my reading. My replies are in text:

I've noticed this "undeniable pedigree"...but I still wondered if I was missing something from the experience. I've mostly preferred the Islay-type whiskies to this point...and I wondered if the Islay intensity is what helped my experience to not be tainted by mixing samples (where for example my tasting of a more delicate whisky would suffer after something as intense as a Laphroaig). Johanna mentioned 99% pure cocoa chocolate followed by a few sips of filtered water, or alternatively, some bread followed by canapes...both of which I'm interested in trying...to see if I notice a difference in my tastings. He mentioned that this is what a number of blenders do to cleanse the palatte...and that's what he does when being studious in his whisky tasting...while doing comparisons. I've read posters' opinions regarding the order with which to sample various whiskies (I remember a particular post by Rajmund M. - maybe a year ago or so - where the order of Islays for a tasting was discussed). I think I agree with your pedigree comment above. Maybe with the top whiskies it's not that critical?

I've never sipped a Scapa 10...though I do understand what you state about different whiskies under different circumstances have different effects/seeming different. Did you have the Scapa 10 the same way two nights later as you did the first night? (i.e. on ice). Or was it neat two nights later? I've found that with the best whiskies, I don't like ice. But with the harsher whiskies - like some of the blends, ice helps to smooth them out. I just can't drink a JW Red neat...I'll have to add an ice cube. JW Black is semi-tolerable neat...but I still usually need something to cut it a bit. Ardbeg I will ALWAYS drink neat. I've tried maybe 20 different single malts this past year, and I have from 2 to 4 bottles open at any one time.

From what I remember from psychology class, the sense of smell is often the strongest sense for "bringing back" memories. There are very strong associations between life-experiences and scent. When I smell the scent of the perfume "Almay" I very vividly remember an old college girlfriend who wore that scent every day! mmmmm! (that was 10 years ago). I've read your past posts about consolidating whisky into smaller airline wine bottles, but I haven't yet done so myself. I had a bottle of Woodford Reserve Kentucky bourbon which at first sip seemed to be the smoothest bourbon I'd ever tasted (with a little ice). Three weeks later I didn't know what I was drinking - it just wasn't the same bourbon I remembered from weeks before. Maybe the Woodford Reserve could have benefited from being stored in a smaller bottle.

I think that WILL be interesting! (your original summary ratings). I'll tell you, I'm grateful for the opportunity to correspond with people all over the world on the Internet...especially regarding Scotch Whisky. The range of opinions and reviews that I can read are incredible...in addition to actual correspondence with other Scotch connoisseurs. It's can't imagine this level of communication 15 years ago. I'm still a beginner, but I've learned so much from the posters in this newsgroup (Johanna, Bart, yourself, D. Hoyt, etc.)

Yes, I feel that my favorites are always in this league. I haven't yet devised a formal written rating system of my own...and I don't know if I should. Maybe I should just let my memory be key. Memory says "buy Ardbeg!" etc. My current favorites are: Ardbeg 10, Laphroaig 10, Lagavulin

I've read the "point" ratings of Michael Jackson and Jim Murray. I whole-heartedly agree with your opinion of Caol Ila...though I only have had the IB's to judge from (Gordon & McPhail - which was chill filtered, and Signatory - un-chillfiltered). From what I've seen and read, there is no OB of Caol Ila available in the U.S.A. (I'm near Boston...somewhat near Canada...approx. a 6 hour drive...is there an OB available in Ontario?). The Signatory UCF Caol Ila 1991 11yo 46% was BEAUTIFUL! Was it that particular cask? That particular bottle? Who knows? I guess it all comes down to personal taste.

I'm getting your point about comparing the same whisky to itself over time. Informally I think I've done the same thing...which has helped me to select my current favorites (listed above). I was never very disciplined about rinsing the glass out before (or cleansing my palatte)...yet, I still found my favorites, and they're of the highest pedigree...so...maybe you have a point that I should take. As an experiment, maybe I won't rinse out my glass the next time, just to see.

Thank you Douglas for your response, Sean

Hello Sean,

Like you I usually read this group's postings daily, but occasionally I am pulled away by other obligations. Let me also extend you a welcome to the whisky conversation.

I'm not sure where you're posting from*, but sadly the Signatory Vintage Island (Talisker) was not imported into the U.S. as far as I know. It's too bad, because it was said to be the best of the bunch; I don't know if that's true, I've never tasted it. There were bottlings of it at 40%ABV and at cask strength. There was likewise a Sig. Vintage Islay (Lagavulin) at 5yrs. at both 40% and cask strength which was imported into the U.S., and it was pretty tasty. The CS version was especially nice, but both were exceptionally good values for the money. I still see the 40%ABV version; I believe it has been re-bottled because of label variations but I don't have details on that.

The Malt Advocate lists Federal Wine & Spirit of Boston Mass. (617-367-8605) as one of the 200+ malt retailers. Have you been there?

It used to be thought that Islay whiskies were too "big" for any but the most experienced (jaded) drinkers. Delicate light Speyside whiskies ruled the day, and every producer was moving toward lightly peated malts. But conventional wisdom underestimated our palates. Peaty Islay whiskies consistently sell as much as they can produce, and some are experiencing shortages; while now every whisky producer is moving toward including at least one heavily peated expression. Still, there are some delicate whiskies worth exploring. Your Highland Park is one of them, along with Macallan, Aberlour, Glenfarclas, and others. These wouldn't normally be seen as "delicate" being some of the bigger highlands, but compared to Ardbeg, Laphroaig and Lagavulin they could be called delicate. I'm not a fan of the Mac 12 - which is a sort of heresy I suppose, "Rolls- Royce of malt" and all that - but older ages of the Macallan really impressed me. Big sherry is the answer to big peat - but combining both together seems to be hard to pull off. Only a few whiskies try it and only a few of them succeed. The Laphroaig 15, the standard Lagavulin 16, and the Bowmore 17 seem to do this best of the commonly available OB expressions.

Speaking only for myself, any excuse for more chocolate wins my approval. I've noted that dark rich chocolate really seems to compliment sherried whiskies...

Excellent whiskies all; I haven't had the Signatory 1991 Caol Ila, but I'm very fond of Caol Ila in general. Lately I've enjoyed the Sig. UCF 1990 Caol Ila and enjoyed it quite a bit. I've read some remarks praising the Sig UCF 1989 Caol Ila, but only the 1990 has been available locally.

Don't be shy, I'd like to hear your thoughts on bourbon. I've only begun to explore this kind of whisk(e)y. I have limited experience and an untrained palate but so far I've found Woodford Reserve to be *very* drinkable. Though in general I go for the more rye-tinged whiskies when it comes to American whisky.

Oh, does that sound familiar! Now and then I put away a bottle for "someday", and then draw on that collection when cash is short. I often get independent bottlings because they are produced in small numbers, and wont be available a year or two down the line. Sometimes I get OB's. Always it's something I've had before and found to be really nice. But... a couple or so years down the road it's so hard to open one knowing I can't get a replacement! But whisky's for drinking! - now, or later.

Seventy dollars buys a pretty good whisky. At some point the price is more about rarity, age, and status than about the taste of what's in the bottle. Of course, some expensive bottles are very good indeed and whether they are "worth it" is a matter of opinion. I have almost never paid over $100 for a bottle. A few exceptions, a bit over a hundred dollars, seemed "worth it" to me. And I've been lucky enough to taste some expressions that cost quite a bit more. Some of them I wish I had on my shelf, but I can't justify the expense to myself (much less to my wife!).

Just a few rambling thought and a hello...

Bart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My marriage will not likely survive this foray into the abyss called "good scotch" but I need not worry, for no greater spouse is there that provides both pleasure and comfort, affordably, than great cheap scotch.

----- Cedrars ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) in alt.drinks.scotch-whisky

Are you still in the Boston area?

If so, take a drive down 95 towards Providence and get off at exit 2 heading south. (Newport Ave, Rt 1A)

A few miles down on the right is Town Wine and Liquor. The folks there are great to talk to, and the have a reasonable selection on hand (normally over

Hello Bart, Thanks for replying to my post,

I had the Sig. Vintage Islay 5yo at 40%, not the cask strength version...I haven't seen the cask strength yet. I asked about it tonight where I shop. I too think it's a great value. The owner of the store (who's a big fan of Scotch from what I hear...they have multiple stores in the Boston area) wasn't in at the time, and the employee told me to call during the daytime tomorrow. May I ask what you mean by "...re-bottled because of label variations..."? I haven't been able to find much info about this version. By taste/nose I could definitely identify it as a Lagavulin.

(617-367-8605)

I have not been there...thanks for telling me about it. Maybe this weekend. I would really like to have some cask-strength Islays to select from.

I've read that one reason why the peaty Islays are in demand is that the big-name blenders of the more pedestrian whisky blends use them to help balance out their blends. Could that be why? Or is that even true? One of my friends is a new Scotch drinker (maybe 6 months). He's never had an Islay (only Speysides, Highland Malts, and blends). I've been trying to convince him to try Arbeg 10 or Laphroaig 10, though I realize that all Scotch drinkers won't love those. He asked his neighbor (who's a big Scotch drinker...I guess he has a big cabinet full of single malts) about Islays and his neighbor replied with something like "Oh, Band-Aids in a glass? Yuck!" So I guess his neighbor doesn't like Islays. The funny thing though is that I understand exactly what his neighbor was saying in his description. So I guess I love Band-Aids in a glass...thank you bartender, give me another!

I actually haven't fallen in love with the Macallan 12 either. It tastes "woody" to me...which I LOVE in a Bourbon, but haven't fully appreciated yet in a Scotch. I've never tried the Mac 18. I've been afraid to try another Bowmore due to what I've read about the FWP. I've had the Bowmore 12 and the Legend. I tried the Legend first (while looking for an $$$affordable$$$ Islay) and I thought it was perfumy (and that was before reading about the FWP). Then I tried the Bowmore 12 this past Spring...and I was very disappointed. It was similar to the Legend...very perfumy...it really didn't feel like much of a step up from the Legend...though it was nearly twice the cost. Both of them were quite unlike my favorite Islays...and in a very negative way. Tonight at the store they had an entire line-up of Bowmore (Mariner, Darkest, 12, etc.) and the most expensive of them all was $38 U.S. (I see you're in TX? texas.net. Are the prices similar there?). I taste the sherry in Lagavulin 16, but not in Laphroaig 15. Maybe my senses are not acutely defined as necessary to detect this? I discovered Scotch only a year or so ago, so I'm still developing my tastes (and nose).

I just bought a Signatory Vintage UCF Caol Ila 1990 (12yo) @ 46%. I opened it tonight and I compared it to my previous Caol Ila 1991 (11yo) @ 46%...to the extent that my memory supports this comparison. I like the 1991 much better. I still have an unopened 1991...that's the "tomorrow" bottle that I mentioned before...and I have NO IDEA whether or not it will live up the the first 1991 bottle that I had. The 1990 was lighter in color (very light...it was a very faint cream color) than the 1991 bottle and it has more visible sediment (even at the top of the bottle). I've NEVER before noticed sediment in Scotch. There weren't any 1991 bottles left on the shelves tonight. If you ever have a chance to buy the 1991, I recommend it. This 1990 is wonderful, by the way.

Scotch is my favorite drink, and it's usually my first choice. Regarding bourbon, I've become enormously fond of Maker's Mark as an affordable, high-quality Kentucky Bourbon. There is only one variety of Maker's Mark...it's 45%, full of dry-wood and vanilla tastes...it's a SLIGHT bit sweet to me...but not in the same way that cheap liqueurs are...this is bourbon whisky, damn it, not liqueur! It's not a single-barrel whisky...it's a mix of many barrels. The best bourbon is harsher than the finest Scotch, but bourbons are very satisfying when you're in THAT kind of mood. Scotch is much more smooth and refined. I typically drink Scotch neat...I almost never drink Bourbon "straight"...I typically put one ice-cube in the glass with my Maker's Mark, let it melt a bit, swirl it around with my finger, then drink it. It cuts it just enough. Bourbon is typically very woody and Earthy. Woodford Reserve was one of the best Bourbons I've ever tasted (I had the 45.2% I think, but the change in character after a few weeks threw me off a bit. Due to a bad cork maybe?) Maybe I'll try another bottle. Booker's is great too (It's by Jim Beam, but it's the select bottles from the warehouse I guess). It's strength can vary by bottle (it's bottled straight from the barrel), from 121 to 127 U.S. proof (60.5% to 63.5% ABV). Even with only one ice-cube in the tumbler, the Booker's was VERY smooth. mmmmm. Bourbon is a much different experience than Scotch. Knob Creek at 50% (and more $$$) is great too...but I prefer Maker's Mark. I've had a difficult time finding pure rye whiskeys near Boston...I haven't had one yet. I saw the Jim Beam Rye (the yellow and black label version) in Los Angeles a few years back, but that was before I became a whisk(e)y fan, so I didn't try it. Maybe Federal Wine and Spirit will have it.

Yes, that's my fear...loving a whisky, yet not being able to find another bottle. I'm not worried about being cash-short...I mean, I could always sell my car and walk to work, right? But seriously, it seems that when a particular (OB) whisky is becoming scarce, somebody posts the supposed scarcity here at first notice, giving us enough time to scrounge up a few (OB) bottles to drink until the situation stabilizes. Like with the Lagavulin 16 last year.

I feel the same way. I've never tasted a $200 whisky, but I don't expect it to be much better than the best $70 bottle that I've ever had. Supply and demand...if someone wants to pay for it, (because it's rare, or for whatever reason), the price goes up...but it still doesn't guarantee a better whisky. Call me naive, but I can't even imagine any whisky being better than an Ardbeg 10, or Laphroaig 10...maybe more complex, but.... Anyway, I'm still learning. I thought that $40 was the lower-bound price for a good whisky, until I tasted the Sig Vint Islay 5yo (Lagavulin) for $20. It's not incredible, and it's not nearly as good as a $40 Ardbeg, but it helps to move the average price of a good whisky even lower.

Thank you Bart for your response...I'm certain I'll be posting here again. I'm not a bourbon expert, but if you ever want to discuss bourbon, please let me know. Sean

P.S. I hope I've been conforming to the expectations of the readers and posters in this group regarding replying-in-text, snipping, etc. I haven't been writing everywhere because this group has seemed to be very reasonable about those types of things.

Yes, I'm still in the Boston area...thanks for the store reference! Providence is approx. 45 min to 1 hr from me (I live maybe 15 miles North of Boston, so the travel time really just depends upon the traffic/day/time of day). That's pretty-much a short drive from here. You mentioned that they have wine and Scotch mailing lists...I'll have to look them up online as soon as I finish typing this. Maybe they have an email list? Are you a Scotch enthusiast living in the Boston area too? I'm just curious...if that's too personal I understand...sometimes people don't want to reveal too much online. It would be nice to find other Scotch fans in the Boston area to share drams with. I'm currently trying to build up a collection of Islays. I have 8 great bottles at the moment, some opened, some not. I've been exploring with the independent bottlings, which has been lots of fun. If you live near Boston and you're ever interested in discussing/sharing drams, email me here (remove the obvious from the email address above)

Thanks, Sean

I strongly second Ralph's advice: Town Wine & Spirits has many fine single malts, good prices, even with the 7% RI sales tax, and sales on a frequent basis. Longrow 10 (1991), for example, is only $49.95 and tax (or at least it was at the end of December). No website yet. E-mail address is snipped-for-privacy@townwineri.com. Proprietor is Elliot Fishbein, a good guy who knows his malts. Best of all is that you live in a thriving malt metropolis: home turf for Sir Dave, Nano and the other Ardbeggeddoneers. (Ardbeggeddon V was several weeks ago in Las Vegas). Cheers, Ed Ps. TW&S is a must visit.

I've noticed (I think) that the bottles of Sig. Islay 5yo @40% that I've recently seen in the stores had a slightly larger or bolder font on the lable; they just looked slightly different from the first bottles I saw - but I don't have an old bottle to compare them with to say so for sure. I'm going to guess that the Islay has proved more popular than the Highland, Lowland, etc., and at some point another batch was bottled. Perhaps more than once. I'm almost sure of it. I know the Campbelton has been bottled more than once because I've seen it in diffrent ages.

I've never been to Federal, it's just listed in the back of the Malt Advocate. The other store people have mentioned, Town Wine & Spirits is also listed as a 200+ malt retailer.

It's true that some pedestrian blends use Islay whisky to give their blends a good strong "Scotch Whisky" flavor - one of these is White Horse which uses a little Lagavulin - but the peaty Islays will easily dominate a blend. They don't have to use much Lagavulin to flavor a lot of Glen Elgin and grain whisky. So I don't think blenders really account for the shortages. The 1980's were a hard time in the Scotch whisky industry and lots of distilleries ran less production, or ceased production - some permanently. So now many distilleries just don't have sufficient stocks in the critical 12 to 21 year old range. Lots of product from the nineties, which will be mature soon, but currently a deficit of good mature whisky stock. Lagavulin was on reduced production schedules, Ardbeg was closed, Springbank sat out the occasional year, Bruichladdich was on just a maintenance schedule, etc...

I like White Horse, by the way, not as a whisky to sit and contemplate, but as a no fuss "background" whisky when the real attention is on something else; with a little ice usually, but I've sipped it straight on occasion. Price is right, too.

There's something to that "Band-Aids in a glass". Those unfamiliar burnt plastic smells some of the Islays display... But once you come to like them, you're sunk! There's just about nothing in the world that tastes like that. Some folks say that Laphroaig used to be more aggressive (I'm one of them), but it still has a punch for those unaccustomed to the Islay style. It used to be said you could smell the "Band-Aids in a glass" before you even bent your elbow.

The 18yo is a very good whisky. I didn't think much of Macallan at all, based on the twelve, but when I tasted a few of the older expressions I suddenly saw how Macallan had earned its reputation. The first of these was a Murray McDavid and it changed my way of thinking about Macallan. Then I had some OB 18's, a 1976 and a 1978. They were excellent. But overpriced. Here the 18 goes for about $100, and there are other whiskies I'd rather have for that much money, or even for less. So I haven't revisited the Macallan much. Some folks say the eighties vintages are nowhere as good as the seventies vintages, but I remember people saying the seventies were not as good as the sixties vintages. I don't have enough experience to form an opinion.

Bowmore can be wonderful, but there are some bad Bowmores about. The good news is that it seems they've worked out whatever the FWP problem was. But it can take a long time for old stock to work it's way through the retail channels.

Your prices are much better than what we're seeing. The 12 is about $40, the Mariner about $50, and Darkest and wine finishes about $65 - the price of the 17yo. I liked the Mariner; Douglas had mixed feelings about it, as I recall, and didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did. I didn't like the Darkest so much. I thought there were incompatible elements fighting each other, but at $38 I might give it another chance. The 17 is the best of the commonly available Bowmores in my opinion (if you can find one that isn't perfumy), the "sweet spot" in their extensive line of offerings. It doesn't have the peaty punch of the south shore Islays but is one of the most complex standard whiskies out there. The flavors are in a tight knot that is very hard to unravel... but I'm always ready to have one more go at trying to unravel them.

That sounds like the 1990 I had. I'll keep watching for the '91.

Thanks for your thoughts on bourbon. I'm just begining to explore American and Canadian whiskies. American rye whiskies are usually a sort of bourbon where rye substitutes for wheat in the mash bill and makes up 51% (or more) of the grain. I had the 18yo Sazerac about a year ago. It has bourbony flavours but was very interesting and pleasant. Jim Beam Rye and Old Overholt are nice whiskies in the same bourbony style and incredibly cheap. Others have praised the Wild Turkey rye but I haven't had it yet. There is also Old Potrero, a 100% rye whisky made by the folks who make Anchor Steam beer, and made from malted rye, so it's also a single malt. Another one I haven't tried. But I have tried the Canadian rye whisky Lot No. 40, which I was very impressed with. More than the others, I think it's a rye that would interest drinkers who are used to scotch and irish. It's been called the "Laphroaig" of Canadian whisky because of its powerful flavors where many Canadian whiskies are quite light. But its powerful flavors are the spicy liquorice gumdrop flavors of rye whisky.

Thanks. Just let us know when you come across anything that strikes your palate as good... or bad, or just interesting.

No one here seems to be too uptight about posting style; I think you can post however you're comfortable. Some top-post, some bottom-post, some respond section by section, some mark their snips and some don't. My habit of snipping comes from long reading some other groups where posters will quote 500 lines and then add, "Me too."

Bart

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Or better yet, use the Jack Daniels "shot and a chaser" glass. An honest admission of the true nature of Tennessee whiskey.

-------------------- Bushido in alt.drinks.scotch-whisky

I kind of like the "Band-Aids in a glass" metaphor. And I really do thoroughly enjoy the Islays. But my neighbor put it best when I introduced him to (and got him addicted, as well) Laphroaig 10: "Wallpaper paste! Your pouring me wallpaper paste?" "Well, yes I am. I take it you'll have another?"

Hello Bart,

The Sig. Vintage Islay that I have is in a green bottle with gold colored "Vintage Islay" silkscreened onto the bottle above an image of Islay (also gold screened). Below that is a blue label with gold border, standard block type font. I don't remember my first bottle being different (about a month ago).

That's interesting (your comments about hardship in the industry during the

I almost can't imagine Laphroaig being any more aggressive than it is now! If there is a currently-available bottling of Laphroaig that is more aggressive than the 10yo, please let me know. I'd like to try to get one if available.

$$$affordable$$$

I'll have to double check the prices on my next visit. I can't imagine a price difference this large, so I could be in error about what I listed. Maybe I'll try the 17 as my next Bowmore.

I will do that. Thanks, Sean

That's the one. It's been around for a couple of years now. It seems to me the first ones had a smaller font on the label that the most recent ones do. With some in the series (Campbelton) I've seen it bottled at various ages, so there must have been multiple bottling runs, at least for some of them.

That's about the way I feel about it too. Surprisingly good, given the

Look for old stock of the standard 10yo (hard to find), or the Murray McDavid bottlings, or the long promised "Cask Strength".

Bart