Printable View
I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. The Octomores (despite what some writers may say), IMHO, are a one-trick pony......but a damned good one. The Octomore Orpheus 2.2 at 140ppm is one of my favorite highly peated Islays but often carries a price tag that is difficult to justify. If you ever get the chance to try it, I'd recommend doing so. They're a very unique one-trick pony.Quote:
Originally Posted by unclebunk
It won't be less "phenolic" per se, just different than the standard 10yr. I've read all sorts of theories and opinions on the effect of QC maturation and the possible pros and cons of doing so. Let your palate be the judge and form your own opinion. If you like it, great. If not, no biggie.Quote:
Originally Posted by sutton
Over time, yes, your palate will become muddled with the peat and you'll lose your ability to discern anything else. But in the beginning, 10/10 times you could blindly pick out an Octomore over a Laphroaig just by peat alone. It's that substantial. After 3 or 4 or 10 (everyone's palate is different), you probably couldn't tell because there would be so much residual oils in your mouth. You'd have trouble identifying a bourbon from a scotch after several pours of Octomore. It's definitely a "save this one for last" dram.
If its the medicinal/band-aid/iodine notes you find off-puting, you should probably stay away from Islays. The medicinal notes don't come and go with various releases.....they're a part of the Islay terroir. If you enjoy some peat in your glass but want to skip on the medicine and iodine, I'd suggest some Highland peated malts. Ardmore Traditonal Cask would be a great one to start with. Highland Park, though not as peated, is very nice as well.
Phenol content of Laphraoig 10 and Lagavulin 16 are almost identical. Both in the 40ppm range. Ardbeg 10 would be the heaviest peated standard release on the island in the 50+ range.
Keep in mind there are a few different ways to measure how "smoky" a whisky is. You can Google the methods but basically you can either measure the malted barley itself after it has been dried by the kilns, or the spirit after distillation. Remember that ppm levels will drop over time.
This article might explain things in a little more detail.
http://www.whisky-news.com/En/report...phenol_ppm.pdf
Cheers!
Great information, thank you!
I was kn Halifax NS this past week and tried tne Balblair 16. And enjoyed it immensely. Going to see if i can track a bottle down.
I have Balblair 97. I like it quite a bit. A decent price too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmac
Clynelish 14 & Ardbeg Alligator tonight - tasty
I enjoy Clynelish 14 as well. We had a blazing hot evening two nights ago and were drinking tequila and Mexican beer. But last night the temps plummeted so we went to Orkney: HP12 and 18 with some very tasty Skull Splitter on the side. Great whisky, great beer!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainWhip
I need to put my bottle of HP18 back into the rotation - I just have too many bottles open at the moment (apparently a common SB condition)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclebunk
Finally opened my bottle of Abelour a'bunadh batch 16. This one was bottled at 59.6 % abv. I was horrified by the overpowering taste of kerosene and muriatic acid with a wee hint of ammonia. My batch 13 was smooth and fruity and I was expecting a similar experience. I decided to add some filtered water to tame the beast. After cutting it, I dove back in only to bail back out with my inward self feeling like I swallowed ground glass. My mother always accused me of being stubborn but I look at it like I paid $65 for this bottle so I'm going to find a way to drink it. I went with a 40% mix with water and finally I could taste the Abelour I've always liked. Unfortunately, there is a persistent harshness that usually comes with alcohol found in a mason jar with no label. Final verdict- mixer bottle not for those with a strong dislike for cleaning agents mixed with flammable fossil fuels.
I'm putting the Glenfarclas 17yo through its paces. It was my first impression, and continues to be my impression on third tasting: I prefer the 10yo. Though the 17yo enhances much of what is present in the 10yo, the extra oak is hindering the mouthfeel on the 17. There's a shallowness to the 17yo that is disappointing, like the extra time in the barrels soaked up some of the oils that make the 10yo so appealing to me. It makes me wonder about their use of chill-filtering: My 10yo bottle is an older label and it tastes unchill-filtered to me, whereas I'm finding the 17yo much firmer and less viscous.
The 31yo 1974 vintage brings so much distillery character, even diluted appropriately from its 114.8pf CS form. I love the nascent attributes of this character in the 10yo, even at 80pf, but the middle ground 17yo at 86pf just isn't living up to either so far. Hopefully one of us comes around. On the other hand, $45 for the 10yo makes for a very rare enjoyable everyday pour for a scotch! I'm interested in looking into the 105, which is bottled, I believe, at 120pf and is 8-10yo whisky.