PRICE: $55-75 with decent availability. INFO: Single malt scotch from Laphroaig distillery on Islay. This is a no-age statement whisky that is matured in three different casks (hence, three wood). First, ex-bourbon. Second, quarter cask (smaller barrels for quicker maturation). Third, Oloroso sherry casks. Bottled at 48% ABV. NOSE: 88/100. Captivating and complex. Clay and ash on top. Layers of red fruit beneath. Deeper in, maltiness with “seaspray”, as they say. I pick up a little bit of talc powder, which is undesirable, but otherwise, the nose is delicious. PALATE: 83/100. As with most NAS bottlings, the bottle is unstable once opened, and the flavors change even after a month. First, getting better, and then worse. Vanilla smothered by peat, cherries and raisins, clay and ashes. A bit of engineered complexity from a fresh bottle, but with time, things become more cohesive, and there is a point when it is absolutely delicious. And now, I’m pulling from the last few pours from the bottle, and it’s becoming stale and flat. Quite an arc; but, it is what it is, when whiskymaking hacks are replacing age statements. FINISH: 80/100. I never enjoyed the finish that much. It’s caramel-y and sweet, which clashes with the ashtray and medicinal peat. Some toasted nuts and mustiness adds a little complexity. OVERALL: Complete transparency: I might not know what the fuck I’m talking about. At a blind tasting, I thought this was Lagavulin 25 year old. We were sampling 10 Islay whiskies (!) from a collection of about 40-50. There was a Lagavulin 25 in that collection. We were a little inebriated and one person said of this Triple Wood, “Oh my god, what is this? This is the best shit I’ve ever had. So sweet, so smoky.” And, like monkeys, the rest of us agreed and landed on “this must be Lagavulin 25.” We did not get any Lagavulin 25 that day. I wouldn’t have wasted it on me on that day. We ended up concluding that “Slainte” is the phrase Scots use as they dip their balls into the distillate, and that’s why Islay malts are salty. Such good times. Of course, I had to get a bottle for $60 after mistaking this for a $1000 bottle. And of course, it’s not as good, on sober analysis. Or, maybe, it’s preconceived expectations coloring true appreciation when tasting non-blind? Hmm… MARK: 84/100. VALUE FOR MONEY: Par. I don’t regret buying the bottle that I have. I won’t be replacing it, however.