Tastes

I was stuck outside while working last night as the remnants of hurricane Matthew dumped the last of its rains here in central Virginia. The weather really set the mood for an Islay distilled scotch: dreary, salt-tinged rain and howling winds (while working nights did its usual thing of testing my overall mood). Perfect time for a new Laphroaig. I may as well open this year's Friends of Laphroaig Cairdeas release. This one was finished in Spanish Madeira wine casks and comes in at a healthy 103.2 proof. I paid $75 here in VA. First of all, I was surprised that upon pulling the cork the living room wasn't filled with that beautiful, signature Laphroaig smoke. Pouring myself a dram I also noticed what appears to be a slight rose color tainting the normal golden hues. At first I thought it was the color from the bottle's label reflecting through, but upon closer examination it isn't. There's a slight, pinkish hue to my Laphroaig. After 15 minutes of sitting and swirling I still don't get much smoke on the nose. Eerily, it's very reminiscent of the 15 year old Laphroaig- and not in a good way. I don't get anything replacing the usual smoke either. Uh oh. The first sip reveals the Laphroaig smoke I know and love along with a nice hit from the oak barrels. I'm detecting young whiskey here. As far as the wine cask finish- all I get are some subtle sweet fruits like strawberries and maybe cherries. Whatever time it spent in these wine casks it wasn't really long enough to add much towards making it a more complex scotch. It stripped away the normal oily and rich finish and replaced it with a weaker, dry one. I really loved the 2013 port wood Cairdeas- it made a wonderfully complex Lahproaig. This version unfortunately did not. The finish is pretty dry and very short. Even the burn from the high proof is absent, which some folks may love, I don't. It seems very un-Laphroaig to me. So, my initial impression is very similar to the 200th anniversary 15 year old. It seems like a light Laphroaig. That's not what I want from these guys. Before I get blasted, I realize it's hard to make an annual Cairdeas release and expect extreme depth, but they've done it before so that's not really true. This is a different take on the norm, but I can't help but feel but a bit let down. I still love Laphroaig, but I gotta chalk this one up as a disappointment. I still have the full bottle so maybe it will change my mind as I drink through it. I hope that happens. Maybe I'm brooding after a horrible night at work, my palate may be off, Donald Trump is a jerk, Hillary Clinton should be in prison, etc. I'm looking for anyone or anything to blame at this point. I guess I'll just give this one some time and hope it was just an off night for me. Cheers.

This is Batch #3 and it comes in at 54.9%/109.8 proof. The label highlights Oloroso and Pedro X sherry cask, but I'll be damned if all I get up front is new oak. Fresh, vibrant oak. This NAS beast is young. (Now I'll freely admit that I usually dilute cask strength whisky with a few drops of water as a rule, but I ALWAYS, ALWAYS take the first sniff and sip as the distillery intends- Neat). If you don't do this I have 2 words for you...come on. 15 minutes in the Glencairn glass and I'm still sniffing- hoping for something other than oak. A bit of sweetness has snuck into my scotch. The first sip at full strength and the oak and spice flood the tongue, fool around and let it settle into your mouth and the pepper and allspice begin to take your breath and send a burning sensation up the nose. God, I love cask strength. If you let the heat escape and gently swirl the remaining juice you get rewarded with a bit of zesty citrus. The bottle says there's a heavy malt presence but I don't get it because the citrus or heat has muted it. The finish is long, spicy and hot- as most cask strength bottlings are. If you're a bourbon-head you'll appreciate this, if not you may be gasping for air. I guess I'm a little bit of both- I loved it but found myself subconsciously being thankful it was over. I immediately reached for another sip because, well, I have a problem: Too much good whisky and not enough time to drink it all. This bottle runs significantly higher than most of its brethren: I wanna say this bottle was close to $110+, but if you like spicy, oaky and high proof bourbon-esque scotches you'll be thrilled.

Wow wow wow. I've read reviews stating that drinking this is almost a chore. Well, sigh me up for more chores, mom and pay me in LeDaig 18 Year Old. Putting your nose into the Glencairn glass and inhaling deeply rewards you with big, Laphroaig-y smoke, brine and a tease of sweetness. You expect that first sip to just slam your tongue with medicinal, band-aid and creosote but damn if it doesn't back off and just hit you with a sweet, dark fruit that pops and settles throughout your whole mouth. The heat shows up lastly and then, BAM!, here's that heavy peat smoke that dominates the long, heavy finish. This bottle runs just shy of $200 but I promise you, I will be buying another the very next day when I sadly finish this one off. It hits all the right notes for me and if you enjoy and appreciate the big smoky Laphroaigs but also want the dark fruit and sweetness of a sherry cask finished scotch then give this a go. A beautiful, beautiful scotch. Cheers.

To be a triple oak barrel blend there is a surprising absence of wood on the nose. There's lots of sweet fruit and flowers with just a hint of oak and sherry cask. The oak waits until it rolls across your tongue, then it makes a big presence- vanilla and heavy spice. Just a tiny bit of raisiny sweetness before finishing pretty smooth like almost every Mac I've had. My notes lead me to believe the 15 is marginally better than the 10, and I wanna say the price point was only $20-30 more than the entry level of the fine oak series (the 15 was $70 IIRC). Unfortunately I don't have any 10 year laying around to do a proper side by side, but I'm pretty sure the 15 would win and be the one I'd recommend. I always recommend Macallan because they are the pinnacle of Highland/Speyside scotches IMO. Sadly, they know it and are almost always significantly more expensive than most of their neighbors. A lot of times though they really are worth it. Cheers.

Ahh, the in-house blend of most Laphroaig staple single malts. It starts out well enough with that classic peat smoke that all Laphroaigs open with and continues on to the palate: creosote smoke, band aid and seaweed brine. It's all too familiar at this point, yet it's everything I love. I've tried every malt blended here except that elusive PX cask. I'm not sure how I truly feel about this NAS offering: it tickles all the right spots just being its traditional Lahproaig self, but some (spoiled) part of me wants there to be something to set it apart from the rest: a richer mouthfeel, more smoke, more heat, more....anything. It just isn't there. I suppose I should rejoice in the fact it's a tad bit cheaper than the sum of all its parts. There's that. ...and that's what I'll settle for. It's Laphroaig, folks. You know what you're getting. If it's your thing you're gonna enjoy it and look forward to what's next in their arsenal. Keep calm and sip on, my friends. Cheers!

I decided to do a simple side-by-side tasting of two 12 year Highland single malt Tomatin: this sherry finished version alongside the French oak. The color is kind of light, but the nose is really promising: sweet fruit and honey with a nice whiff of the sherry cask coming through. I believe the bottle said it was aged on ex-bourbon barrels and finished for a short 6-9 months in unnamed Spanish sherry casks. On the palate it starts off very sweet but is quickly overtaken with oak- and lots of it. It washes away the sweetness a bit too quickly and finishes sort of harsh. It's a lengthy, yet hard finish. Boozy for only 86 proof. My initial impression is that it isn't offensive by any means, but it's suffering from a serious identity crisis: the nose leads you to believe this wants to be a poor man's Macallan (no offense), but the heavy oak burn and finish really keeps me from rating it higher. It's only $35 a bottle so in that aspect I guess it shines- a single malt that's cheap and readily available. I think if they had advertised it as ex-bourbon barrel and let the sherry be more of a pleasant surprise it would've worked better IMO. Cheers.

Lagavulin's take on the 200th anniversary release is in sharp contrast to Laphroaig. While the latter released an off-cycle 15 year variation, Lagavulin chose the opposite to its stalwart 16 year old. Here's your chance to taste their amazing whisky at half its usual age. Kudos to them for leaving the age statement on the bottle as this might be a deal breaker for most other scotches. The first thing I noticed is how light in color it is- this thing is American light beer light. The nose is still very Islay- peat smoke, medicinal and briny. A smile can't help but form on my face. It's very young and feisty on the tongue with so much oak it almost tastes like a first-fill, bourbon barrel highland malt. Then the smoke overtakes it and you are reminded this is Islay and Lagavulin we're drinking here. My smile broadens... The finish comes rather quickly and unfortunately it's shorter and drier than what a Lagavulin should be. That's the only short coming that I can find. It's a better 200th celebration than Laphroaig's 15 Year for sure. It's a big win for me. Ignore the price point, which is a bit high for such a young scotch, and enjoy this for what it is: another fantastic Lagavulin single malt. Invest in a bottle and celebrate 200 wonderful years. Cheers, my friends