skillerified
Laphroaig 10 Year
Single Malt — Islay, Scotland
Reviewed
April 5, 2021 (edited October 26, 2021)
N: Barbecued vanilla frosting and iodine. Smoked mint, tarragon, and other garden herbs. Turkey bacon with a smoked raspberry jam. Definitely medicinal, as its reputation would lead you to expect. It's an ethanol sort of medicinal, slightly numbing, but far from unpleasant. Caramel and old tennis balls (which is noticeably different from new tennis balls). Some rich red fruit hiding inside an unbaked wheat flour dough ball. Additions after beginning to drink: new tires, anise, chlorinated pool water, gasoline (but just barely - like the pleasant, sweet first note and then no more), middle school gym class, black tar...
P: Medicinal first - not ethanol this time, it's something more bitter, sharp, and herbal - like a really strong tea (probably black, but some white in it too). Behind that is a really nice traditional profile of caramel, vanilla, and dried red fruit. The ethanol does hit a little later and, like the palate, it's not unpleasant - just doesn't add much either. Grilled pineapple, dark chocolate, dark roast coffee. Very faint stone and orchard fruit deep in the background. Finish is dark chocolate (bitter), mild cayenne pepper heat, and more of the herbal/medicinal character.
This whisky is fantastic. It has depth, character, a story. It's truly delicious. But I still think it's a step behind the Lagavulin 16 - unfair comparison as that may be since 16 year olds usually beat up on 10 year olds in any competition, but I don't make the rules about the best known and best selling Islay whiskies. (The Laphroaig 10 is actually better selling, I believe, so maybe 10 year olds can beat 16s at something.) Worse, I don't make the rules about the best peated Scotches, generally. If I did, however, I think I favor the Talisker 10 and Highland Park 12 over this, just slightly. Each of those are closer in price (and, probably related, age) to this, and yet both offer a slightly more robust and diverse palate. Basically, I don't love the medicinal nature of this. A lot of people do love it - maybe you will! I think this is a personal preference dram - if a somewhat bitter, medicine character appeals to you, then this is your dram; if you want Islay smoke and character, but less medicine, drop a few extra bucks on the Lagavulin; if you want smoke, not the bitter pill, and want to stay around $50, grab the Talisker if you can find it, or the Highland Park. Regardless, no disappointments with any of those drams. All of them are excellent.
50.0
USD
per
Bottle
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
All I know is when Im on my deathbed they can hookup the I.V. to a bottle of Lag 16 and Ill just drift into the Scottish goodnight....Its aight
@cascode That all makes sense. It is all subjective and always changing. Not just whiskey - just about anything we taste - but probably especially whiskey, given that small changes made 10, 15, 20 years ago change what's in the market today. And our memories of things change too. Lots of factors in play, but that's part of what makes it fun.
@skillerified Lagavulin 16 is a fine whisky - you’ll get no argument from me about that. I reviewed it here in 2016 and again in 2019 and gave it 4 stars each time. It’s just that once I would have given it 5 stars without hesitation. I certainly get that it is special to many peoples’ experiences – it was to mine as well. For 20 years, up until around 2010, it was my favourite dram and literally always in the drinks cabinet. I still buy the occasional bottle, but when I taste it now I can’t escape the feeling that it is different. I think the difference is a change of profile over time rather than any sort of deterioration or loss of quality. Lagavulin 16 used to have a dry character but it has gradually become more laid-back and sweet. I think it is so popular and highly rated because it remains a terrific whisky, and is rightly praised for what it is now by folks who have discovered it more recently. However what it is now is not what it was in earlier times, and that earlier profile was the one I liked, so I don’t rate it as highly these days. Talisker has changed as well. Every whisky changes constantly, ask any master blender. My palate has also certainly changed over time but the thing is I don’t notice the same type or degree of difference in every whisky, and what’s more I’m certain many have improved rather than deteriorated over the years. Anyway, that’s my 2c. It’s all subjective 🙂
@cascode I see. I have heard that about many whiskies, but actually not the Lag 16. I'm fairly new to all this, and the 16 was special in my experience, so it's saying something to say it's dropped in quality. Tangential, but related: does Talisker not have the same problem?
@skillerified I’m one of those curmudgeonly old blokes who whines on about Lagavulin 16 being not as good as it used to be – you know what we’re like 😊 I’d take a Lagavulin 16 from the 1990s or the first few years of the 2000s over almost anything, but recent Lag 16? Pass.
@cascode You favor the Talisker over the Lagavulin? It's so close. I think the Lagavulin offers just a bit more, but costs 50 to 100% more (wide range locally) and probably isn't quite worth that difference.
An excellent review - bravo. I think you are right to favour Talisker 10 more highly, and personally I'd place it as superior to Lagavulin 16 as well. Kudos.