@Richard-ModernDrinking And specially to your point if abv doesn't matter you could argue the standard is a committee variant as well unless they have used completely seperate casking for both standard and committee i.e. they don't share a single cask between them. This maybe the cask? Is it? In which you are correct it's just a higher abv committee release. But then Laphroaig 10 vs Laphroaig 10 CS have separate distinctions so on that basis I thought I'd do a separate entry. I didn't want to review something that is nearly 10% abv difference on the wrong entry but that's probably just me being pedantic:-)

@Soba45 Ah, so the committee isn’t cask strength. Makes sense. I had it last night and will post notes before too long.

@Richard-ModernDrinking Yeah that's an odd one. Standard is 46%, Committee release 50.7% (according to distiller entry) and this 59.5%. I headed off before it was unveiled as it was an hour session however my mate confirmed it was Ardbeg Blaack variant which made sense as paired with a nz pinot noir. When you think about it 50.7% whilst indicative that it's CS given the '.x%' is quite a low abv for what would be a youngish finished Ardbeg. Either it's very old, matured in India or not CS. Hence given the 'Cask Strength' labelling. Now it could be the committee but it would have to mean the abv on distiller is wrong and none of the reviewers picked it up. I've never seen two different committee releases and I can't remember the last time I saw a nearly 60% abv committee release either.

How is this not the committee release? There’s no difference other than the strength.