So, is the FWP thing over?

Around the time of the last sighting of Nessie :-)

Has Nessie been sighted so recently?

O.K., you (and S.W.) made me laugh at that one!

Bart

My first reference to FWP is in 1999 in the post to this group by TaylorHS ( snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnospam) entitled "malt disease spreading??" posted on April 11, 1999; though there may be earlier mentions of it. TaylorHS in his post talks about a quality he'd noticed going back over the previous year.

By the next year we were all "self-styled whisky connoisseurs" in the immortal phrase of Dereck Gilchrist. Who may yet be "monitoring this growing phenomenon" and contemplating "steps to ensure that derogatory or potentially harmful postings about either our brands, or our company, are removed".

Most discussion of the phenomena took place in 2001, though it still occasionally turns up, at least as a concern such as yours.

But even in its heyday it was an occasional thing, not at all to be found in every bottle.

And there seems to be some inconsistency in what people are describing as FWP. Usually it's a harsh, sweet, artificial chemical smell that makes the whisky undrinkable. Sometimes it's a "perfuminess" that's unpleasant but doesn't make the whisky undrinkable. Sometimes it's compared to soap - especially lavender bath soap. Enough discrepancy to wonder if everyone is actually talking about the same thing. Enough discrepancy to wonder if FWP really existed at all, especially because there is certainly a type of "perfuminess" that is an expected and normal quality in some malts. But it's been described by tasters with cultivated palates and considerable experience with malt whiskies such as Bushido, Douglas, and Johanna.

I'm not so sure I've ever found a FWP bottle. I had a Bowmore 12 which was unpleasantly perfumy - and I've had enough of that expression to know what to expect - but it wasn't undrinkable (though the nose certainly diminished my enjoyment of that bottle). That was the most likely candidate for my FWP experience. I've had three Glen Gariochs (a Morrison Bowmore owned distillery (2 OB's and 1 indy)), and a Cadenhead Teaninich that were definitely and unmistakably soapy. One of them would foam and hold its "head" of suds if shaken. Nasty stuff and definitely undrinkable. And I had a Bowmore Ledgend with an awful metallic taste that I wouldn't drink more of after having had a few shots - but no one describing FWP talked about a metallic taste.

I trust the descriptions of the posters who have had the unfortunate experience of finding a FWP bottle - why would they lie? One even found it in a Bowmore Sea Dragon which must have been quite a disappointment! And my experiences are as outlined above. If FWP was an occassional flaw (my theory is that it derived from errors on the bottling line and not from the whisky itself) that peaked in the late 1990's, then much of it will have already been sold and consumed (or tossed out). (And note that Cadenhead of the soapy Teaninich has its own bottling line. Bushido found FWP in an Edradour, and another poster found a soapy Edradour - I don't know who did their bottling.)

But sometimes a bottle can sit on the shelf for a very long time. In fact, I look often look for such bottles. I've found bottles for sale in the last year that were bottled in the late 1980's and early 1990's. So it will remain at least a nebulous concern for some for quite a while. But a good Bowmore can be very good indeed. My last Bowmores were quite nice - they were standard OB's; so I don't know when they were bottled...

Bart

I was having a sip from my November purchase of Bowmore Dawn the other night and REALLY enjoying it. It is perfumy--but so oddly and strongly so to be almost sour. A bitingly strange, but really attractive whisky, and the thought came to me: really, this (port cask matured) whisky IS the concentrated essense of FWP. It is practically the bath soap perfume of FWP undiluted in one bottle--but it is still intensely attractive.

I started to wonder whether the FWP problem might have stemmed from this very maturation being added to the standard Bowmore line. I normally like Bowmore for its clean, cool, freshness with a beautiful peat kick at the end. But the FWP bottlings of Bowmore 12 I bought (and found undrinkable--I had to give them away) had this odd, creepy perfume mixed in that seemed to RUIN that beautiful clean freshness, and stand in strange contrast to the peat. It makes me wonder whether Bowmore didn't start adding things like the port casking (which makes the Dawn such a strange bird of a whisky, but in a powerful, enchanting way) to the regular product--and ruined it.

I also had some Bowmore Mariner the other night (the 15 year old), and there is still a perfume whiff there that I don't find totally offensive, but still find incongruous, and it adds a strange, plasticky, artificial tweak to the whisky. My current 12 has none of this--it is very clean--but it is a lot 'thinner' than these other products. Maybe they experimented with adding odd caskings in order to beef up the sauce, and have since scaled back because believe you me, lots of people have complained! One or two European versions of Bowmore 12 I had in the 1990's, which absolutey REEKED of FWP, were also much more dense and viscous than the more watery 12 I have now, and which I truly enjoy.

Thanks for the info guys! A neighboring county has the 17yo on sale, so I wanted to assess what kind of risk I'd be taking. I may just have to take the plunge.

Thanks again!

Bart, I've never accused anyone of lying. My current view is that FWP exponents are simply mistaken. I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but simply because a number of posters on a newsgroup agree on something, it doesn't make it right.

Just to clarify why I don't believe in FWP:

Apart from this newsgroup, and the odd posting on another mail forum, you won't find any reference to FWP.

I spent two weeks on Islay the year before last. I visited every distillery on the island and asked a number about FWP. Not a single person I asked (including many eminent owners and retired owners) had heard of FWP. One even asked who was winding me up!

The chair of the Islay whisky club had never heard of it.

So until I read about FWP somewhere else other than a forum where folk can remain anonymous, I'll treat it in the same way I believe in UFOs, Crystal healing and the like.

Sorry.

I didn't mean to imply or insinuate that you had. It never crossed my mind. But I see now how you could have thought I was addressing you, as one of the vocal FWP skeptics. I apologize for any confusion. I was only speaking in the general sense: if someone has an axe to grind it becomes obvious pretty quickly (Hello Doctor!), and it's usually a safe assumption that when people post they're giving their honest impression though they may well be mistaken, mis-informed, or inexperienced.

Although Gilchrist seemed to think the critics were acting mischieviously, or with outright malice...

I think there is a legitimate case for skepticism. I wanted to present that too. That's why I drew attention to how differently FWP has been described by the people who claim to have found it. And that a few instances have been claimed for non-Bowmore malts.

I absolutely agree with this, and would add that no one should regard any post, including my own, as more than one person's opinion.

That's not an unwise policy - though of course it would have to be a forum where actual criticism is expressed; obviously not one of those which relies for its existence on the good graces of the industry.

Bart

climbing back aboard the alien spacecraft to recharge my crystals...

...

(and that's a joke, by the way!)

Not to influence your decision, but the 17yo has always been my favorite of the standard age bottlings - not counting the 25yo and the 30yo which I haven't tasted. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Bowmores I still haven't tasted if you count all the wine finishes and what not. But of the Ledgend, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21, and 22yo the 17 was my favorite. Peaty, though not as intense as the south shore Islays, and very very complex.

Bart

Sorry, but with due respect, my current view is that it is you who are mistaken: I have HAD the FWP Bowmore 12 and it is not AT ALL just an excessively floral character. I completely agree with you on the Bowmore 17: it is very complex indeed and I am in the minority, it seems, who like it a little more than the 21. Bowmore 17 is my favorite Bowmore, to date, and I have never had it with FWP. I'm glad Bowmore 12 is now back to normal. Bowmore, when it is good, is very, very good indeed. The PLOWED folks, at

Apropos: the Islay Whisky Society's description of Bowmore in general goes like this:

"Aromas of burnt peat and chocolate. Balanced, rich and smooth with the characteristic peat, and trace of iodine, of Islay. Smoky, with a hint of seaweed. Definite edge of salt, with a perfumey taste similar to rose water".

Gunnar

"Douglas W. Hoyt" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...

smelling!?)

Sorry, wrongly spelt address. Correct address is:

Gunnar

"Gunnar Thormodsæter" skrev i melding news:4021f052$ snipped-for-privacy@news.broadpark.no...

Search the new PLOWED Site.

Search for: FWP

No documents found. Please try again.

Quite. The description above backs up my view that it may be an inherent characteristic of some bottles of Bowmore the malt rather than a fault per se. However the description by the believers here is one present in aroma rather than in taste.

floral character.

There is no other whisky, I mean NONE that I have found truly objectionable and undrinkable. And I was a big Bowmore fan since the early 1980's. When I bought that first hideous bottle I couldn't BELIEVE it. I kept trying it over and over, and it was such a completely corrupt, horrible product, I was sure there had been a terrible mistake at the factory. And it stayed that way for years.

But the very worst was the Bowmore Legend with the Curse. The Legend is a scruffy enough product as it is, but to have it reek of perfume was ridiculous. The Legend is now as clean as the Bowmore 12.

As I said, lurk there for awhile: they frequently lose all past postings. Probably a good thing, in the long haul! ;-) Slainte, Ed

postings. Probably a good thing, in the long haul! ;-) Slainte, Ed

Do you mean that if I write something here on Usenet after I've had just a a tad too much of the Old Glenmorfarcwhinnie Park it becomes part of some sort of permanent record?!?!?

Maybe! ;-) Frankly, I tired of the FWP thing. I would like nothing better that for Bowmore to be permanently back with their A game: it is very hard to get peat and sherry just right and they clearly know how to do it. I hope they keep doing what they are now doing so well. Cheers, Ed

Not QUITE quite :^)

It doesn't HAVE TO be "rather than", it CAN be both: A wanted characteristic that works fine in some vattings/expressions, but in others really doesn't fit in and therefore ruins the whisky.

Anyway my aim was not to support any particular view here, since I don't have much experience with Bowmore myself. Just thought the quote was interesting in the context.

Gunnar

"Brett..." skrev i meld> > Apropos: the Islay Whisky Society's description of Bowmore in general