Are mini bottles a reliable sample?

[MikeK]

What everyone else said.

In the opposite direction, I always thought that Lagavulin mini's actually tasted BETTER than the 750ml. Not that there is anything wrong with the 750. I voiced this opinion to a rep. once and he said that they use a different profile for the minis. Might have been talking out his butt, but I say they are much stonger flavored.

[spun_cookie]

What everyone else said.

In the opposite direction, I always thought that Lagavulin mini's actually tasted BETTER than the 750ml. Not that there is anything wrong with the 750. I voiced this opinion to a rep. once and he said that they use a different profile for the minis.

Might have been talking out his butt, but I say they are much stronger flavored.

I have noticed this with the MM, Beam 8 and the Woodsford. Much richer on all three.

[StraightBoston]

I'm in big trouble if they're not representative -- I have over 100 in my collection! Most are eBay specials of long-disappeared distilleries/brands.

I have occasionally acquired a nip and compared to its "big brother" 750. The variation in profile is there, but probably less than the range of one single barrel to another.

What I have found is that the older ones are susceptible to all of the dangers of extra-dusty bottles -- mustiness, evaporation, oxidation. I've had many more spoiled minis than spoiled decanters.

[cowdery]

I would chime in with those saying that the only problem with minis is that they are only 50 ml. I would hate to review something on less that 375 ml, but maybe that's why I don't write so many reviews.

[Bourbon Geek]

I think the answer is an unqualified maybe ... Many distilleries do not bottle mini's continuously, but in a few large batches per year. This would lead to potential batch-to-batch inequalities being expressed. If the distillery is particularly good in the batch-to-batch thing, the mini should be more closely representative.

Also, the kind of cap can make a difference ... cork has already been discussed with it's potential problems ... there is also a potential difference between the metal ROPP caps and plastic ones. The machinery for installing the metal caps is more subject to "difficulties", especially in getting a perfect seal; and a poorly sealed bottle will eventually lead to a product that is not representative of it's big brothers. The addition of wax over a metal cap certainly can cover a multitude of sins with a poorly sealed metal cap ...

So ... I would vote for a plastic screw cap to provide the most replicable experience ... followed by a wax sealed metal one ... then it's a toss up between cork and metal ...

[smokinjoe]

Well, I'll be...Dave's rating of cap selection got me to thinking, so I just checked my collection of mini whiskies that my wife has been giving me every Christmas since 1982. All of the plastic capped minis have suffered ZERO evaporation. And, some of these go back to some of the earliest ones I have. Most of the metal capped ones have sufferered some degree of evaporation...some rather extreme. The Maker's and Knob, both waxed over, have zero evaporation, as well. I'd never really noticed this pattern.
So, if the integrity of the seal between cap and bottle means anything, then minis would seem to be more representative of the originally bottled product if they have plastic caps. So, my unscientific 'speriment, would seem to give credence to Dave's assertion. I'm sure he's delighted to hear this...

Metal caps look purdier, though.

[StraightBoston]

I can't say for certain regarding wax-topped metal caps -- the only major label not represented amongst my 100+ minis is Maker's (because the collectors bid up the sealed bottled itself past my budget for tasting what's inside!)

The explanation as to why the mini profile might vary from the 750s makes sense and is consistent with my tasting experiences.