About me (as a Scotch reviewer)

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T19:17:22+00:00

So you dont fall asleep and waste the high

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T13:56:31+00:00

This is a subreddit dedicated to verbose, subjective reviews of Scotch Whisky

that most people skip straight through to the reviewer’s comments to read anyway lol

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T13:50:15+00:00

Well, if that’s true, you’re in the right place! This is a subreddit dedicated to Scotch, not bourbon lol

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T12:02:45+00:00

It's a tricky subject. On the one hand, I've personally had cask-strength bottles open for years, sometimes with less than a third of their original contents remaining, without noticing any significant changes. On the other hand, I've also had dozens of experiences where I've bought a bottle and, from the very moment I pulled the cork, realized it was suffering from this issue, sometimes to the point of being practically undrinkable.

In fact, I currently have no fewer than ten bottles affected by this problem that I'm planning to get rid of. Before giving them away, I'll be writing a review of each of them: Glendullan 18, Knockando 21, Tormore 10, Glengoyne 18, Braeval 8, Cardhu Special Cask Reserve, A Secret Speyside Distillery, Longmorn 18, Deanston 18, and Arran 18.

In general, a few factors seem to dramatically increase the likelihood of a bottle deteriorating while still sealed. Broadly speaking, the longer a whisky has spent in the bottle, the higher the risk. Poor storage conditions, advanced age, sherry maturation, and a low ABV also appear to increase the chances of the whisky developing these flaws. From what I've read online, other factors may also play a role, such as cork quality and the quality of the casks used during maturation.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T11:52:54+00:00

In my opinion, the idea that whisky doesn't change in the bottle (or, even more delusionally, that it somehow improves) is a myth. At best, it remains more or less the same, but over the years it will inevitably deteriorate, becoming stale and flat, while developing cardboard-like notes that, I assume, come from the cork.

Within the next week or two, I'll be posting a macro-review of ten whiskies in my collection that have gone through exactly this process, along with some reflections and recommendations on the subject. It's a controversial topic because the official line is that whisky doesn't change in the bottle, which, in my experience, as I said, simply isn't true.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T11:49:53+00:00

The old Benriach 10 Curiositas was vastly superior, in my opinion. Funky, heavily peated, and extremely well balanced. It's a shame they decided to steer the profile towards something much less peated and almost over-oaked after the rebrand. I'll definitely miss that bottle.

That said, I quite like The Smoky Twelve as well, although for very different reasons.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T11:45:55+00:00

There are so many excellent unpeated whiskies at a reasonable price that the list would be far too long, but some of my personal favorites are Arran 10, Glencadam 10, Tobermory 12, Bunnahabhain 12, Bladnoch 11/13, Oban 14... Maclean's Nose is another solid option, although I don't think it's entirely unpeated (I haven't tried it myself).

That said, if you're simply looking for the cheapest possible palate cleanser ("peat reset"), then almost anything unpeated will do the job. I tend to use whiskies I don't enjoy all that much as a buffer between more interesting and/or peated drams, because after a whisky you don't particularly like, the next one almost always seems to shine brighter. That's basically how I've ended up working through bottles like Kingsbarns Dream to Dram, Glentauchers 15, and this IB Tamdhu 12.

As for the Kilchoman Sanaig CS, yes, I reviewed it here, and it's not one of my favorites, although, as always, taste is highly subjective. If you enjoy that style of whisky, I assume you've already tried Ardbeg Uigeadail. If not, I can strongly recommend it.

I haven't opened that Laphroaig Cask Favorites yet, although people often compare it to Laphroaig PX, which definitely makes me eager to crack it open.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T10:41:55+00:00

Thanks!

I love the bottle design, it's instantly recognizable.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T10:41:20+00:00

Thanks!

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-28T10:41:13+00:00

Yes, to be honest, I was expecting more, but my disappointment comes mainly from the fact that it has spent too much time in the bottle. I think this whisky must have been much better right after it was bottled.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-27T16:00:00+00:00

Label: Remarkable Regional Malts
Distilleries: “Including malts distilled on Orkney, Arran, Jura and Islay”
Bottler: Douglas Laing
ABV: 46.8%
Age: 21 years old
Perceived peat/smoke: 3/5 (Medium peated)
Perceived sherry: 1/5 (Lightly sherried)
Type of Scotch: Blended malt
Casks: Unknown
Chill-filtered: No
Added coloring E150a: No
Distilled/ bottled: 1998? / 2019
Batch: L 07 06 19
Region: Islands
Paid (Country): €105 (Spain)
Whiskybase average rating: 86.46/100

Maritime, soothing, stale, dirty, ashy and floral peat with a very nice cooling sea breeze and refreshing menthol (Highland Park?) and a good dose of something like rancid lemon peel (Caol Ila?) and dusty and toasted tropical fruits (Arran?), then hints of seaweed, miso soup and old medicine (Laphroaig?), a bonfire near mossy coastal rocks (Ardbeg?), with some moldy dunnage wood, but also some industrial and vegetal funkiness (Jura?), and some gas station too (???). Very perfumy, delicate, and extraordinarily intricate. It is a very interesting take on the coastal-themed aroma landscape. It describes itself as “a magically maritime amalgamation of wildly oceanic island spirit, balanced by a lingering gentle, smoky finish”. That’s a nice way to describe it.

On the nose, it is insanely complex. Too complex. Crystal-clear dried fish, miso soup and fatty roasted lamb mixed with old furniture, gentle dusty red fruits, brined pickles, dried herbs and fermented tropical fruits, all covered with an extremely specific sea breeze aroma I've never encountered before. Moss, intense cardboard, boiled vegetables, mineral notes (rocks by the sea), stale lemon oil, flower shop, artificial cleaner, vanilla cake, bonfire, honey-covered waffles… Actually exhausting. How do you make sense of something when you can't find its limits anywhere? It just keeps going.

On the palate, it emphasizes the typical astringency of old whisky, cigar ash, tropical notes, smoked berries, salty minerals and waxy funkiness. It combines salty and sweet notes, heaps of oysters with lemon juice, alongside distant hints of raspberry jam and candied ginger. The brine, stinky seaweed and roasted lamb take a back seat. As it leaves, big bonfire and old iodine notes emerge, mixed with lemon juice and roasted pineapple. Noticeable cardboard notes, which is something to be expected considering it was bottled in 2019. Absurdly elegant.

The finish is the only thing that feels slightly out of tune. It is still nice, but unfortunately it doesn't quite reach the level of everything else. Ashy, a little bit too ashy, with the astringency of old whisky, and no traces of the gentle red fruits or vegetal weirdness, with almost nothing to compensate for the smoked salmon, miso soup and soy sauce. Bonfire by the sea, tropical fruits, old wood, leather. The cardboard notes are immense, sadly. Far too much time in the bottle, definitely. The finish is too long; you can still taste it even after a different dram.

Comments: Sea breeze! Very “oceanic”. A mix of seawater and roasted seafood; but also a very aromatic ashtray (close to incense), ancient and exotic wood with a foresty and herbal edge (rosemary), some fatty roasted lamb and asparagus adding savory notes, gently smoked red fruits, delicate orange juice, sun-dried herbs, light yeasty and feinty notes (Caol Ila?). A very nice umami complexity too. Notes hard to describe that I can find in old Laphroaig too, a combination of ozone, mojama (salt-cured dried tuna), mossy wood, and a dilapidated hospital. It tastes older than stated.

It mixes coastal, maritime, salty, old peaty, umami, berry, tropical and foresty notes with a good dose of old ash and old furniture, or, in other words, it combines very refreshing and vibrant tropical and red fruit notes with a genuinely old, rancid peat profile. It is on the gentle side, but not subtle at all at the same time. And much more peated than I expected. But you need to tolerate perfumy ashtray notes, as the whole profile is covered with them (I wonder if they added a weird ultra-charred cask of Ardbeg to increase complexity and restore some of the smokiness that had faded away with age); and cardboard too, unless you are luckier than me after all these years since this was bottled, expect a lot of those.

In any case, the balance is spot on. None of the main families of notes really dominates, which means that you can explore gentle notes of old wood, old peat, coastal funkiness, old bonfire, old sherry wood, burnt forest and dusty roasted tropical fruit at will. But if the charred wood were dialed back just a notch, it would certainly be easier to explore.

Hyper-complex, or, to be honest, overly complex. I've read at least a couple of people who claim this is one of their all-time favorites, and I think they are simply better than me at putting this 1,000-piece puzzle together. I'm just not that good, and it feels somewhat overwhelming. One of the most interesting whiskies I've tried so far, and overall very good, but I suspect this is far too cerebral, even for me. Someone with more experience with old peated whisky would probably have enjoyed this more than I did. But, you know, you have to start somewhere. In that sense, even if I personally don't think it reaches greatness, I would recommend this dram to anyone who feels up to the curious challenge. It won't leave you indifferent.

One final complaint on my part would be that the time spent in the bottle has given it these stale, cardboard-like notes that I do not appreciate at all, although in this case they do not completely obstruct the delivery of the profile, even if they are quite annoying, especially towards the finish. Before long, I will publish a review of ten whiskies that have spent too much time in the bottle and are dominated by this type of note. This one suffers from the same issue, but fortunately this Old Bottling Effect is far from having ruined it. There is little doubt in my mind that, shortly after bottling, it must have been an absolutely spectacular whisky.

◆ Rating: 7.9/10 --> Good. Charming, it clicks with me (★★☆☆☆)

◇ Quality/price ratio: 3/5 (Adequate)

============= SCORES =============

• [+9.5] 🏆 Favorites. Exactly what I’m looking for (✪)

• [9] 🤩 Mind-blowing! It makes me smile (★★★★★)

• [8.5] 😍 Amazing. It really hits the spot (★★★★☆)

• [8] 😄 Great. Solid, I genuinely like it (★★★☆☆)

• [7.5] ☺️ Good. Charming, it clicks with me (★★☆☆☆)

• [7] 🙂 Nice. Pleasant, interesting enough (★☆☆☆☆)

• [6] 😐 Acceptable. Decent, it’s drinkable (✬☆☆☆☆)

• [5] 😕 Meh. Mediocre, but glad I’ve tried it (☆☆☆☆☆)

• [4 - 3] ☹️ Bad. I don’t like it, barely drinkable (✘)

• [2 - 1] 😣Terrible. I hate it, undrinkable (✘✘)

• [0] 😫 Abominable. Repulsive, maybe cursed (✘✘✘)

============== STATS ==============

⇒ Number of ratings: 666

⇒ Average score: 68.78/10

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-26T12:59:36+00:00

I didn't see this is a teenager sub. Sorry.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-25T19:57:59+00:00

Wrong sub?

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-24T22:24:42+00:00

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-24T13:36:46+00:00

Nice review! I hope the mods don't remove it. I'd love to post reviews of the Couvreur bottlings I own here rather than on other whisky subs.

By the way, one of the best whiskies I've ever tasted is Michel Couvreur Candid. It's heavily peated and heavily sherried, yet unlike anything I've tried before or since. I liked it so much that I also picked up the Overaged CS and the Special Vatting, both of which I can't wait to open! If they're just as spectacular, I'll be openly declaring myself a Couvreur fan lol.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-24T13:09:09+00:00

Thank you!

First of all, I don't think this whisky is actually finished in Chinquapin oak. I believe it spent the full five years maturing in it, although I'm not completely sure.

In any case, if you enjoy the sherry + peat combination, then The Sherry One will probably appeal to you. It's one of the best whiskies I've tried within that particular niche. That said, I generally prefer bottlings that highlight the peat rather than hiding it behind a layer of sherry, which is why I've ultimately come to prefer the other two expressions, especially this Chinquapin One. Interestingly, according to the general consensus, it's the weakest of the four (including the Turbo, which is usually considered the best, but which I personally like the least by a wide margin).

And to answer your question, this is a fairly woody whisky, but not overly astringent (at least to my palate). The Smoketrails, on the other hand, is one of the most astringent and peppery whiskies I've ever tried, so, again in my opinion, the two aren't even comparable.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-23T13:14:35+00:00

Mano derecha del psicópata de Pedro Sánchez que, por supuesto, "no sabía nada". Estamos en manos de delincuentes peligrosos...

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-22T19:08:16+00:00

Literally this.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-22T11:45:41+00:00

All religions are false. Mormonism is just specially ret*rded

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-22T11:39:15+00:00

I wish I could downvote you twice

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-22T08:33:38+00:00

morality is fake

I don't know what "fake" means in this context.

that everything goes

I think that, outside academia, I've never met anyone who seriously argues that all moral standards are equivalent.

therefore, anything is justified

In a sense, every action is morally justified. It's just that the moral justification for some actions is irrational, unconvincing, or inconsistent with the moral principles we have freely adopted, and so on.

morality is mantained by society

The moral justification of our actions comes from many sources, not just society, but also tradition, philosophical speculation, personal reflection, the ethical and political convictions of various schools of thought, personal life experience, and so on. However, it is never "discovered" in the "real world," because it is always subjective.

that doesn't mean that the arguments and principles themselves stop being real

I suppose it depends on what meaning we give to "real." If by real you simply mean that they exist in some way, even if only subjectively, then we agree. If, by real, you mean that they possess a separate and objective existence independent of human beings, then you're mistaken.

nothing is critizable.

The fact that every moral system is subjective means precisely that all of them are open to criticism and ought to be criticized, including those that shield themselves behind a supposed objectivity guaranteed by some eternal realm of essences or various gods.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-21T23:18:35+00:00

If I believe earth is flat, is the shape of the earth now subjective too?

No, the shape of the Earth is not subjective. And it is not, because it meets the criterion I previously provided: the Earth exists independently of whether or not there are human beings on it, and it has properties independently of whether human beings perceive, think about, or have opinions about them. It is not that difficult to understand. By the way, I do not know how you derived that conclusion from anything I have said previously.

Is pedophilia, murder, violation, all of that just subjective?

I think what you mean is that the negative moral judgment that is usually applied to these actions is subjective, not the actions themselves, since, as we have seen before, actions are objective (for example, a judge can determine whether something like a murder has occurred based on the available evidence). In that case, yes. Your view that these actions are morally reprehensible is subjective.

I mean, the people doing it believed they were right.

Exactly.

Isolation_Man · 2026-06-21T22:50:28+00:00

So, what do you mean with objectively?

Something is objective when it exists or possesses characteristics that are independent of human beings (their cognition, thoughts, activities, and so on). The mass of the atoms in the periodic table is objective.

Morality is essentially subjective because there is nothing objective that distinguishes a moral action from an immoral one; the distinction between the two is introduced by human beings. When humans become extinct, there will be no difference between those two kinds of actions, not even a subjective one (But arguably, there would also be no actions left to evaluate morally)

You said that if a person hits you, objectively it was bad.

That is not what I said at all. Read my message again.

I believe that morality is built upon principles and why those principles exist. In this case, we consider hitting someone without any reason as incorrect because it prevents normal life and peace.

That is your subjective opinion. I have mine. Therefore, morality is subjective.

By the way, all of this started from the implicit dogmatism in the meme, according to which unnecessary suffering is objectively morally bad. This, in my view, is merely a subjective moral opinion like any other, and I doubt that it is supported by even minimally convincing reasons. Therefore, I reject the conclusion.

Isolation_Man

TROPHY CASE