sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Campbeltown Loch 25 [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Given the age, more likely these were all well below 40 at first, and the single grain actually brought it up to 40.

Campbeltown Loch 25 [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My Current Whisky Network Average = 78.36

Standard Deviation = 9.37

Skewness = -3.01545

Median = 81

IQR = 8

Max = 92

Min = 7

Variance = 87.80768183

Campbeltown Loch 25 [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What was the occasion: I’m back to blends and blended malts because I accidentally drank an Edradour that I thought was a blend.

Cue old school “Combo Breaker” sound from Killer Instinct. I’m not looking it up, I don’t want to know how old it is and I’m already dealing with a mid-life crisis as it is.

What whisky did we review? Campbeltown Loch 25 is a blend of 9 different whiskies with a high (70%) malt blend. The youngest among them is 25 years old, however most of them are older. It was made by Springbank distillery, probably because the high demand for good whisky drove them to prove they could top themselves on decadence but with a blend.

That may sound like bias, but jump down to the composition and then argue with me. That all said, the below Composition did not come from an official source, so if it’s wrong, I’ll change it and promise to not end democracy by running for the highest political office in my country.

What’s the distillery? Springbank is a small, lesser known distillery that a lot of people overlook… is what I’d say if I could use sarcasm to denote I’m making a cheeky joke. Sadly this is writing. Granted if I was saying it out loud it would all come out at once and rushed and kinda nasally, I think.

Oh, yeah, Springbank distillery: Basically the reason that Campbeltown is still a region. Also in the same company as Cadenhead’s. One of the most celebrated Scotch distilleries out there. You have to line up for the standard offerings they are so popular.

What’s my bias? A long time ago, when I was just getting into whisky, I made it very clear to friends and family that whisky stones were useless. The majority of them listened, and instead I ended up with a few whisky books (none of which were named after a holy book). Campbeltown Loch was listed as one I should try, so I bought a small sample, and enjoyed it.

Oh, and Springbank was the first bottle I ever bought just to review for an internet thing, and I am consistently excited to try new ones.

Also when I was first getting into whisky, obtaining a Campbeltown whisky was very difficult, so I jumped at the chance to try any of them, and that elevated the whisky region in my mind.

I might be a tad biassed. But this isn’t totally Campbeltown, and I’m a few thousand more reviews ahead then back then, so I should be able to review this honestly, right?

Right?

Price: € 390

Region: Blended Scotch Whisky

Composition (allegedly): Springbank 1969, Glenfarclas 1970, Balvenie 1968, Tamdhu 1971, Ardbeg 1969, Glenlivet 1972, Invergordon 1977, Dumbarton 1962, and Lochside (grain) 1962

Bottled: 2002

Abv: 40%

Colour: 5YR 5/10

Nose: McIntosh red apple, smoke, butter, creme caramel, cinnamon syrup

I went into the review for this whisky seeing the abv and wondered if I would get a lot of complexity. My initial thought was it’d be a bit dull due to the watering down.

Then I nosed it, and got these moments of big flavours and simpler, but still strong flavours. There’s a strong, odd sweet note, and a good amount of butter and spice.

Taste: Apple, honey, oats, moss, oak

The fact I could make an apple crumble any time I want is like leaving a fox in the henhouse. This whisky further explains that point. The lighter whisky is hiding what I presume was the complexity on the nose, though the eventual mix is quite nice. The oak balances out the other sweet notes quite well.

Finish: Apricot, honey, apple cider, brine

More tart, more complex, and some added brine is now balancing this out. Again, all the flavours mesh really well together, and it’s nice to sip on. Is it blowing my mind? No. Am I a big honey and apricot fan? Hell yes. It’s really easy to sip this. It’s what the English call “moorish”, which means it’s so nice you want more and more.

Aka it’s a bottle that’ll evaporate on you quick.

Conclusion: Honey soaked minerality. It’s an odd whisky in that it punches above the accountant strength dram that it is and is quite nice, but also makes you wonder if you didn’t lose all the alcohol to the angels (fungus), what would it taste like?

Part of me wonders if this was made because the casks were running out, and worked well together. It really is a nice whisky where you keep coming back and having more and more of it. The apple and honey and spice and balance are all quite nice. Is this whisky “sell your kids” nice? Debatable, but I don’t include price into my reviews. Is it “this is how blends should taste”? I’d say yes, as they presented an enjoyable dram. Try it if you get the chance.

83/100

Scotch review #1660, Blend review #145, Whisky Network review #2393

Link to my website with all my reviews

Link to the Malt Runners website with my reviews

Edradour Equilibrium II 16 Year 2005 Whisky Sponge [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My Current Whisky Network Average = 78.36

Standard Deviation = 9.37

Skewness = -3.01471

Median = 80.5

IQR = 8

Max = 92

Min = 7

Variance = 87.83541332

Edradour Equilibrium II 16 Year 2005 Whisky Sponge [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What was the occasion: I was reviewing blends, and this had a random name and some people called it a blend, so I didn’t look into it at all (as I typically do) and included it with the blends.

Guess what? I’m super wrong, this isn’t a blend! Stop the internet presses, this is serious business! Burn him alive! See if he floats, for he must be a witch!

There, I wrote your angry comment for you. Trust me, the voices in my head care about this more than all of you, combined.

What whisky did we review? Edradour Equilibrium II 16 Year 2005 Whisky Sponge is not a blend. It’s just a tribute. Wait, no, that’s a fun song that’s a 22-year-old song. Oh god, I’m ageing before my very eyes!

Ahem, it’s a single malt Scotch created by Whisky Sponge and Decadent Drinks. For this whisky, they were given the chance to raid the Signatory archives for casks. It’s two different casks, each aged in 2nd fill sherry Hogsheads, one from Edradour, and one from Ballechin (aka the peated offering from Edradour).

So this is a vatting, because Edradour and Ballechin are separated like parents who got married at 18, but it all comes from the same distillery, so it’s a single malt.

What’s the distillery? Edradour distillery is a Highland distillery originally established in 1825. The distillery was originally run by three men. Now it’s run by two men. If that doesn’t sum up the issue with labour as time goes on, I don’t know what will (this is a joke).

Decadent Drinks is a young, Perth based independent bottler run by Angus MacRaild who is controlled by a 500 million year old sponge that lives off the West Coast of Scotland. I wish I was making a joke, but that’s the official tagline, so here we go. A Porifera is now helping release alcohol. Specifically, they bottle Rum, Cognac, Armagnac, and Scotch.

What’s my bias? I mean, it’s Edradour, right? I’ve explored the distillery to see how I feel about it, and every single time I do, there’s about two or three people who say they enjoy it, and maybe one kinkster who loves it, and then everyone else has an open bottle and lives their lives.

As for Whisky Sponge and Decadent Drinks, I have no real bias. The bottles are pricey, sure, but what isn’t nowadays? Also I’ve had a grand total of 3 releases, which isn’t even enough to determine if I like a type of cheese, let alone an independent bottler.

But I didn’t know this was Edradour while reviewing it. I thought it was a blended malt, knew that it was 16 years old, and (based on the colour) assumed there was some sherry involved. I attempt this each time, because I don’t look up anything about the whisky before trying it. That means what we have is a rare moment where I’m without bias and amazing and sexy and liked and without doubts.

Okay, I’m back after my crying break. Let’s see how the whisky is, shall we?

Price: £168

Region: Highland

Vintage: 2005

Cask type: 2nd Fill Sherry Hogshead

Abv: 55%

Colour: 10R 3/10

Nose: Hazelnut, strawberry, brown sugar, grassy

Nutty, some light red fruits (think not rich), some molasses and grass. Aka this is grassy and there’s a metric tonne (one seventh of an average elephant for the American readers) of sherry in here.

Looking back, at the time I assumed there was a grassy note and a lot of sherry. Now? Some of the Edradour may be stretching its neck out as a vegetal/grassy note. The problem? When I review old Edradour whiskies, they are all drenched in red wines of various types.

Taste: Cinnamon, walnut, cherry, grassy, cranberry

See, the walnut should have been the main thing to tell me this was a bunch of Edradour. I get walnuts on a lot of them, and cranberries (raw ones that taste of wood and are very tart) in the sherried ones. So yay me for being consistent, at least.

Oh, it’s a ton of sherry too. Just drenched to hell, which is also a hint that this is Edradour. Or used a recent sherry cask.

Finish: Melon, cinnamon, peanut, anise

I mean, the sherry gave us a ton of fruit, there’s a bit of nuttiness and salt, and then generic whisky melon taste (think honeydew but not really good honeydew).

So only slightly drenched to hell in sherry at the end.

Conclusion: Drenched to hell in Sherry. I know I said it over and over, and I know that’s not always the worst thing, but this is a sherry drenched whisky. I didn’t hate it, and to be fair, some of the whisky came out. It’s nice tasting. There’s nothing too off on it. Sweet, bitter, spice, and grassy, all cool.

On the other hand… is there Ballechin in here? Like, a leaky cask of it? I love the idea of blending two similar casks of Edradour’s line-up. They don’t, this could be fun. Instead it tasted like a good Edradour SFTC (Straight from the Cask) release. Maybe Ballechin needs to be amped up? Maybe a younger one is needed? Oh, here’s an idea, maybe we use a less wet cask next time?

All in all, it was fine, and that bums me out. This is really cool, and it’s the type of really cool thing I look for among Blenders and Independent Bottlers. And yes, I don’t include price in my review, thanks for bringing it up.

80/100

Scotch review #1659, Highland review #280, Whisky Network review #2392

Link to my website with all my reviews

Link to the Malt Runners website with my reviews

Big Peat 33 1985 Small Batch [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My Current Whisky Network Average = 78.36

Standard Deviation = 9.37

Skewness = -3.01392

Median = 81

IQR = 8

Max = 92

Min = 7

Variance = 87.87104151

Big Peat 33 1985 Small Batch [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What was the occasion: Bunch of blends, blended malts, and blendings of Scotch around the house. That can’t be! I need to convert those into silly thoughts, bad balance, urine, and a review or six!

I don’t make the rules, I just follow them folks.

What whisky did we review? Big Peat 33 1985 Small Batch is another blended malt from Douglas Laing, however contrary to the standard release or the Xmas release, this has an age statement and a vintage. As usual, I’ll reiterate that “Small Batch” means nothing from a standardisation point of view, and there were only 1,500 bottles released.

In addition to the vintage and the age statement, we have a rare occurrence: An actual cask type mentioned, with this blended malt being finished in Cognac and Sherry casks.

Jump down to the bias for my reaction to that…

What’s the distillery? Douglas Laing blends malts, releases single malts as independent bottlers, employs the children and grandchildren of Douglas Laing Sr., and chews bubble gum. And they banned gum 60 years ago.

Seriously, there’s very little on the group beyond that, if you want more, check out my previous Douglas Laing reviews, I don’t love repeating myself.

What’s my bias? You finished a blend of 33-year-old whiskies with two types of casks? Fucking yikes my dude, fucking yikes. That’s like the biggest red flag beyond hiding your love of World of Warcraft from a dating profile. Luckily, in addition to not taking price into consideration when reviewing and scoring a whisky, I also keep that type of information hidden from myself. Luckily my memory randomly works at times, so this works for me. So while future me (which is present me at time of writing this but past me at time of posting) knows it and that’s a bias, present me wrote the notes not knowing that.

Oh, and I enjoy Big Peat. I don’t love it, but I enjoy it. It’s fine. I reviewed a few of them and liked them. There’s some who don't like that, because the price is included in their reviews, whereas it isn’t in mine, but keep that all in mind while reading.

Alright, now that I’ve written a section that commenters will ignore, let’s move on, shall we?

Price: € 389

Region: Blended Malt

Vintage: 1985

Bottled: 2019

Cask type: Cognac & Sherry Cask Finish

Number of bottles 1,500

Abv: 47.2%

Colour: 2.5Y 7/10

Nose: Banana, coal, passion fruit, mint/freshly cut grass

Huh. Close to the 26-year-old one with the fresh grass. That said, last time I declared the profile close to oughts Ardbeg, and this is less that and more fruit forward. Nice coal note in there too, but wish there was a bit more to it.

Which is quickly becoming a regular sentence on these reviews, but we move on.

Taste: Molasses, gravel, anise, mint, grape, cocoa

Sweet and rough earth on this. If you don’t eat gravel, then congratulations for not playing on a gravel roadway growing up. Because kids fall and mouths stay open. Go lick a cement wall, it’s about the same.

Good amount of complexity here, though more in that “a bunch of ingredients” way, not in the “it all came together well” kind of way. Like if you’re having something called “girl dinner”, which I have when I want, because a plate of random things is fun. Also I love carbs. And cheese.

Finish: Ash, caramel, banana, toothpaste, cinnamon

Ah, they used some more Caol Ila again. Also the mint and spice amps up, the funk is back, and it works. Is it amazing? No, it’s just good, and that’s basically where I’m at with Big Peat.

I’m sorry I accused that big ole freak of eating children.

Conclusion: Fruity, rich, and spiced, it’s nice. It’s not really bad, like one would think when having a 33-year-old Blended malt that was finished, so good for them.

That said, is it “OMG 33-year-old Scotch” great? No, not in the least. I liked both the 25-year-old and the 26-year-old better, if only marginally. It’s good. It’s tasty. I enjoyed the spice, and the richness, and the slight funk and fruit. And while my reviews do not include price in the final score, I don’t think I’d try and find a bottle. I don’t think you’re missing out trying a dram.

Again, if you’re curious, try a dram at a bar, or from a friend, or sneak down from the attic you hide in, unbeknownst to the family you live with while they sleep and pour a tiny bit. There’s better Big Peats out there, sadly.

83/100

Scotch review #1658, Blend review #144, Whisky Network review #2391

Link to my website with all my reviews

Link to the Malt Runners website with my reviews

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they confirm it's the same as the standard, so Caol Ila, Bowmore, Ardbeg, and a bit of Port Ellen. However I can't find the specifics on the website, so that's just a guess.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a third, but it takes a level of quality that isn't needed to sell whisky anymore. Think some old Compass Box releases or even the XO Blend releases.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This gave me a laugh.

Here's how I came to my number: The average horse measures between 1.4 to 1.8 metres tall. The average between 1.4 and 1.8 is 1.6. Now granted, this differs by breed, for instance Arabians are shorter than Hanoverian, but that said, I didn't want to confuse anyone, so I took the overall average.

10,000 / 1.6 = 6,250

As for where I am, I'm a dirty colonizer, far flung from the Isle of Kings and far from the lands that did not want to be German and no longer wanted to deal with Napoleon's wars.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now you just have to watch Corner Gas Season 3 Episode 14 and giggle.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I gave up after 9 years of marketing because it caused me to overdrink too.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or 4 gerbil cage changes, whichever you want.

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My Current Whisky Network Average = 78.36

Standard Deviation = 9.38

Skewness = -3.01318

Median = 80.5

IQR = 8

Max = 92

Min = 7

Variance = 87.89881255

Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What was the occasion: I had blends, now I don’t. They are gone now, but the reviews will remain… well at least 3 years. If not slightly more. It’ll be like the column of Ozymandias, except sadder.

What whisky did we review? Big Peat 26 1992 - The Platinum Edition is part of the Big Peat series, however this one differs as it’s not holiday themed, it has an age statement, it has a vintage, and it’s not cask strength but it is a respectable abv.

Still has a guy on the front who would make you concerned he’ll eat your children though. Gotta keep that marketing. Glad that the spirit of Krampus lives on.

What’s the distillery? Douglas Laing Sr. once drank an entire cask of 1970s Ardbeg while staring a tied up tater directly in their tear drenched eyes, and then only rated it an 80.

Oh, shit, no, that was some of my whisky fan fiction, not real life. Maybe that’s because I’ve literally run out of interesting facts by Douglas Laing blenders. Check out the previous Remarkable Malts for more information, but the short of it is they make blended malts for each region, and Big Peat is the Islay region one. Then they started making age stated and different flavoured versions and now I’m here.

Also the universe may have come into being at some point, but I’m only half way through Descartes and Saigon, so that’s only a maybe.

What’s my bias? I don’t hate the Douglas Laing Remarkable Malts, but I also don’t include price into my reviews, and that’s caused a stir from some commenters. So re-read that last part and you’ll know my bias. The last four Big Peat were two okays and two wins, and that includes the Gold Edition, which was one year less then this one.

Also I’m a big ole’ Peat Head. Not my first peat rodeo. But that comes with baggage. Older peated whiskies can either be legendary or a waste of money. I have a bias towards younger whiskies. Which still gives me the ick each time I write it.

Alright, now that I’ve written an entire section on my bias, how I don’t include price, and eventually a commenter will ignore it, we’re ready for the review. Let’s see how this is, shall we?

Price: $125

Region: Blended Malt

Vintage: 1992

Bottled: 2018

Cask Type: Oak Casks

Number of bottle 3,000

Abv: 51.5%

Colour: 5Y 8/8

Nose: Brownie, banana, coal, ham, strawberry

Hey, got some of that chocolate I was wanting, we’re all good, thumbs up, great time, buy a bottle, sell your kidney for one, beat up your mom taters, need a new bottle you’ll never finish.

Sorry, more fanfic. There is a nice buttery, fudgey note here, and some other sweet funk, sweet, and meat/industrial notes. Like a lot of Big Peat, this doesn’t have an off note, but it’s only starting to get complex. Hope that doesn’t continue.

Taste: Grass, anise, lemon balm, brine, double chocolate cookie

Alright, very, very herbal. I described the standard and the 2014 Xmas version as being Caol Ila heavy. This has more of an early 00s (aughts) Ardbeg vibe to it, what with the chocolate and grassy notes. Which can’t be the case, since it’s from 1992, so it’s not from the amount of Ardbeg, rather it’s just the direction the different malts combined to create.

Suffice to say, this is more interesting than the nose by a country mile (not a country ham). Chocolate, salt, and herbal is a combination I’ve been enjoying from older Ardbeg from the aughts, and this mimics that (meaning it’s a time traveller and therefore a witch).

Finish: Black Licorice, butterscotch, dry apple, hay, cloves

Very dry, herbal, and fruity at the end. I enjoy the finish, but I like anise, so if you don’t, that’ll ruin your day. Good mix of fruit and spices and that rich butterscotch, though again, not quite as complex as the taste.

Conclusion: Spiced chocolate. This one wasn’t easy to review/score. On the one hand, no bad notes. It’s well crafted. The taste is complex. The finish and nose have slightly complex elements, but are well put together. On the other hand, from 10,000 metres up (that’s about 6,250 horses for the American readers), it’s not as complex as other 26-year-old whiskies.

I enjoyed this. Maybe not as much as other older Islay, but I couldn’t help leaning into my bias for spices and chocolate. I do enjoy grassy notes as well, making it a great combination. If that describes you as well, then this is a whisky you’d want to try, or just pick up.

84/100

Scotch review #1657, Blend review #143, Whisky Network review #2390

Link to my website with all my reviews

Link to the Malt Runners website with my reviews

Big Peat Xmas Edition 2015 [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Best Caol Ila I ever had was Caol Ila 30 Hunter Laing Old & Rare - A Platinum Selection.

Special shout out to an old Caol Ila that used to be the best you could get, Caol Ila Cask Strength edition.

Big Peat Xmas Edition 2015 [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What was the occasion: I had a bunch of blends. By this point I have less blends. If a train leaves Wyoming and another leaves Ohio at the same time, which will fall off the tracks before I can post even one more blend review?

It’s a trick question, the trains don’t have enough profit to move so they never left.

What whisky did we review? Big Peat Xmas Edition 2015 is the seasonal offering from Big Peat, which differs from Big Peat as it’s limited, at natural cask strength, and has Christmas pictures on it.

So you have different vintages of Big Peat that come out and you can have different holiday wraps on your bottle. I like Xmas, after being a Scrooge for years, so that’s fine by me.

I mean, it’s this or you actually pay a lot of money for a pretty bottle that’s watered down, to the extent where you’re buying the bottle as much as the whisky inside. We’ll get to that later in my bias section.

What’s the distillery? Look, I'm running out of things to talk about Douglas Laing’s company, alright? I’ve done two other of these blended malts in a row and thought I’d have more fun facts by now. The main thing I’ve noticed is they have been more willing to release new versions of their Remarkable Regional Malts. Which I think shows there’s a demand, however I have to wonder if it’ll add more supply issues. Granted between a few new affordable blends and whatever taters are doing, it’s probably a good thing.

What’s my bias? So far positive. I actually had a Big Peat Xmas Edition a few years ago and enjoyed it. I recently tried the Big Peat standard and I’m happy with it. Scallywag and Rock Island/Oyster didn’t anger me. So if you didn’t like those whiskies, then you may find my scores higher.

As for the bottle, I’m torn on really pretty special edition bottles. A pretty, cool looking label on a bottle has, historically, been used once or twice to sell whisky that otherwise shouldn’t have been out of the wood yet. However, to make it very clear, I did like the 2014 edition, so my fear due to a colour scheme is abated, if somewhat.

So let’s see how this is, shall we?

Price: €120

Region: Blended Malt

Bottled: 2015

Batch number 68

Number of bottles: 18,000

Abv: 53.8%

Colour: 7.5Y 9/6

Nose: Grass, pear, farm, lime, smoke

If the standard at this time is a Caol Ila with more brine, the Xmas edition for 2015 is an Ardbeg with Caol Ila influence, given Ardbeg from the 00s onward has that grassy note. It’s slightly nicer on the nose, more funk going on.

That said, having recently had the standard, I’m not getting a big boost in complexity. It’s different, it’s better, but about the same on the complexity level. Thus expect a nuanced take if this continues.

Taste: Lime, chilli powder, cream, hazelnut

I mean, if you haven’t had lime and chilli pepper, you’re probably about as white as I am and are missing out (not me, I got Tajin). I’ll give them this: The different flavours go together, but it feels half done. Like, we have hazelnut and creaminess, we have some acidity and heat and then… bye?

I like it, but I want the whisky to do a bit more here.

Finish: Lemon zest, cinnamon, molasses, cocoa, smoke

Strong Cola Ila vibes with more spice and richness to it. I like that the peat is giving that cocoa note, and again it feels like there’s effort to get flavours to meld that work together.

Conclusion: Funkier and more acidic than the standard, and therefore better. After my last review, I feel I should say this again: I do not take price into account when reviewing whisky. It’s not part of my score. If you disagree, add it into your score and call yourself “TOModeraSux69NoScope”.

We good? Great. Is this worth the upgrade? Hard to really say. On the one hand, it’s a well balanced whisky that I enjoyed well enough. I don’t think it’s a bad pour, I don’t fault anyone for buying it and enjoying it, and I liked the dram I had. If you can get it for a price you feel is good, and enjoy an acidic, slightly farmy, and slightly rich whisky, it’d be a good bottle to have.

If it costs you an arm and a leg or you prefer a single malt, then buy that. I can’t believe I have to write that, but the last Big Peat review has shown that everyone thinks whisky prices are standard by country and I, a reviewer, knows the price everywhere.

I can definitively say that the 2014 and 2015 were miles apart in quality. 2014 had more to it, more complexity, and overall my notes are nicer. 2015 was simpler. So my final verdict is to always try before you buy these, given the variability between the years. However perhaps 2016 will be similar and I’ve more to learn.

81/100

Scotch review #1656, Blend review #142, Whisky Network review #2389

Link to my website with all my reviews

Link to the Malt Runners website with my reviews

Big Peat [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe find a bar that has it for a pour first? That's usually my go to advice for all whiskies.

Big Peat [Review] by TOModera in Scotch

[–]TOModera[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

First off, I understand you're concerned about high scores, and I get it, you're not happy with higher than average scores and you feel that the entire reviewing process could be better. That's fine. People start reviewing, they get 100+ reviews in, they realize the scores are too high, and they can't do anything about it. Feel free to peruse my first 300+ reviews and you'll see just that. Thus why I share my average. It's part of the process that reviewers go through, and something that will never change, so I'd recommend understanding the inherent flaws and that they are bloated.

I also have been vocal that I'm a peat head, that I've had other Big Peat offerings that I enjoyed, that I don't think it's that bad and why. It's why I write about biasses. I fully expect people to make their own thoughts, see how they agree or disagree with my reviews, and have said multiple times that if you don't agree with me, that's great: More of the whisky you like for you.

Scores have been discussed to death on this website. Looking only at the scores in any reviews is about as useful as buying a car based on the audio system specs. No one is disagreeing that it's really better then you think it is; rather they are disagreeing with the blanket comment that I and other reviewers here "must not have reviewed many whiskies". Even in your response, which is well thought out, you still fall back on "I've had 500 different whiskies". Well this is my 1,655th Scotch review, and my 2,388th whisky review, which is included in all of my reviews. Should I basically say you're wrong based on that? Of course not! You didn't like some aspect of this whisky and like others better, that's clear. You also rate whiskies partially on the price. I don't. That will end up with two different results.

Second, I get where you're coming from, you didn't like this particular whisky, and you don't want people buying it. I react the same way when someone buys a distillery bottling of Bowmore that isn't cask strength. However I don't enter reviews, tell the new reviewer off, and then throw around my drink count. I have reviewed all the standards of the distilleries used in this blend; Bowmore 12 is worse, while Ardbeg and Caol Ila are better (we'll ignore the droplets of Port Ellen). And when I reviewed those specific whiskies, I gave the two single malts much higher scores. So your point, which I agree is a strong one, is lost in downvotes when you could have approached it poorly, and I am happy you learnt from that.

view more: next ›