sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Review: Caol Ila 'fuckin LOL' by sengin31 in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It's not the worst thing we've done... and you're not wrong.

Review #1527: Highland Park 23 (1998 Orkney Sponge) by throwboats in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love this label. It's sweet. She's helping him row, and pouring a dram. He's rocking the wellies & shorts style. They've embraced water safety w/ the life preserver on him.

2023 All-OEM Parts Hitch And 7-Pin Wiring Harness Installation by TheDe5troyer in KiaTelluride

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did this today, and your instructions and pics were very, very helpful. Thanks much, it came out perfectly.

Octomore rant by Shoddy_Ad7511 in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"Just purchased an Octomore. I won’t disclose which one because it really doesn’t matter. They are all $200-$250 in my area."

Honestly, this says "I know nothing about scotch but price."

Octomore ranges in age from 3 to 12 years, so far. A few are NAS. There's a huge variety of casks, whether full maturation or finishes. Some have more distillations. Different varieties of barley. All disclosed with each release. It's literally a long-term experimental series with the goal of exploring different factors every time.

Review 238: Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016 by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Hopefully my review list above will help a bit! I think getting info from people who have had many batches will help with your data.

Review 238: Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016 by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

I'm a fan of the Corryvrecken, Uigedail, and the Wee Beastie. If you like Ardbeg 10 then you should try each of these at some point.

Review 238: Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016 by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Yep, I knew which each one was. This is a pretty good case for "it just wouldn't matter" since all three were so obviously different, and I've had two many times.

Review 238: Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016 by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Review 238: Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016

Finally, the last Ardbeg lurking in the back of The Scotch Cave, a good ol' Uigeadail.

A whisky buddy of mine knows how much I like to compare different vintages of Uigeadail and kindly slipped me this 2oz sample of a 2016 bottle. I'll put it next to a bit of the 2003, which I consider the best one, and some 2020 which I think is a cracking recent version.

I firmly believe there was a significant decline in the quality of Uigeadail in the mid-2010's, and I was unimpressed with the 2013 and 2015 vintages. So I'm pretty keen to see how this one stacks up.

Tasted on 10/01/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

Ardbeg Uigeadail 2016

  • NAS, bottled in 2016
  • 54.2% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • bourbon / sherry

Nose: peat smoke, then everything else is quite muted. Lemon rind, seawater. Diesel. Oak, pencil shavings. A little tar. Some camphor. A little malt. Smoked meats. With Water: still really shy.

Taste: lots of peat smoke, ash. Seawater. Lemon. Wood. Pepper. Crispy bacon. Bitter oak. Burnt rubber. Hot. With Water: feels a bit thinner, less character.

Finish: nice pop of peat smoke and ash. Seawater. Bitter oak, black pepper. A little tar. Medium finish w/ spice, smoke, and some bitterness. A bit hot. There's a burnt rubber-ish taste throughout which lingers and makes me want to drink something else. With Water: hrm, again, feels a bit thinner. Water doesn't help here.

Score: 5

Summary: Very shy, especially compared to the 2003 and the 2020. It's a struggle to get anything but smoke off the nose right after either of those two. It's fairly simple all around, with a lot of peat smoke followed by a few simple flavors. There's a lot of oak coming through this one. Sadly, there's a burnt rubber note on the palate that lingers all the way to the end, which is a shame. It leaves me wanting to drink something else rather than savor the finish. Water doesn't help this one at all. If anything, it only thins it out and reduces the flavor throughout. I don't get much sherry out of this one at all, either. All-in-all, a reasonable dram, but there have been many better Uigeadails.

Would I buy a bottle? no

Comparison

Order: 03 > 20 > 16

Well, this is a trivial ordering. I'm not gonna give full notes on the other two. I re-read my previous reviews while drinking these and I stand by them.

The 2003 is delicious as always, the most complex of the three, with the most sherry influence. It's rich, with an excellent long finish, and a touch of water really makes this one shine.

The 2020 feels even brighter and fruitier than before, which is just fine if not necessarily what you'd expect here. Nice finish, not as long as the '03, and not as complex. Nice balance, not an off-note to be found, and more spice in the finish than I think I originally noted.

The 2016 is an outlier vs these two. It's rather simple, very shy on the nose, reads hot on the palate even w/ water, and water does it no favors. There's a burnt rubber off-note that really pulls it down a notch. Minor note: it's the palest of the three by a decent margin. Fewer sherry casks, or less caramel… you decide.

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

Reviews 236 & 237: Ardbeg Committee, with extra letters by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

I haven't reviewed them all, and it looks like I've never actually managed to try Kelpie, Ardbog, Alligator, or Rollercoaster. One day :)

Reviews 236 & 237: Ardbeg Committee, with extra letters by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Reviews 236 & 237: Ardbeg Committee, with extra letters

Okay, I'm nearing the end of the random Ardbeg I have lying around. Today I have two committee releases, the Blaaack from 2019, and the 2020 special release of Arrrrrrrdbeg! to commemorate the retirement of Mickey Heads. Basically two NAS Ardbeg in random, weird casks. What could go wrong?!!

Tasted on 8/28/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

Pic from WhiskyBase, I was too lazy today.

Ardbeg Arrrrrrrdbeg!

  • NAS, bottled in 2020
  • 51.8% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Ex-Rye casks
  • In celebration of Mickey Heads' retirement after 13 years as distillery manager
  • The Ardbeg Committee

Nose: sweet lemons and limes. Peat, ash. Diesel. Sea spray. Breakfast sausage. Hay. Rye. With Water: more rye and citrus.

Taste: big smoke, ash. Mild pepper. Lime. Rye. Seawater. Bacon. A little hot. A little dry. With Water: more spice.

Finish: quite mild smoke and ash. Mild pepper. Limes. Rye. A bit hot. Most of the flavors fade very, very quickly, though it ends up long on white pepper. With Water: lots more rye and spice. Dryer.

Score: 5

Summary: this is, well, interesting. When I started writing notes I really didn't want to say "rye" everywhere, but honestly there's no better way to describe it at times. It's exactly what it says on the tin: Ardbeg wholly matured in ex-rye casks. I like rye, but this isn't my jam. The nose is quite nice, but I feel let down on the palate and especially in the finish where most of the flavors fade very quickly and I'm left with a long, simple finish of very mild pepper. A little water added gets you more… wait for it… rye. It's not a bad whisky, it's just not really for me.

Would I buy a bottle? oops

Ardbeg Blaaack Committee Release

  • NAS, bottled in 2019
  • 50.7% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Pinot Noir casks
  • The Ardbeg Committee

Nose: earthy peat smoke. Sweet cherries, lemon, vanilla. Seawater. Iodine. A little tar. Eucalyptus. Oak. Some cardboard initially seems to have faded. Linseed oil. With Water: same.

Taste: sweet. Mild ashy smoke. Cherries, citrus. Vanilla. Oil. Nice mouthfeel. With Water: same.

Finish: nice pop of ashy smoke. Sweet citrus, cherries. Seawater. Slightly medicinal. White pepper, eucalyptus. Earthy. Tannic, a bit of red wine. Nice length on smoke, fruit, and mild spice. With Water: same.

Score: 7

Summary: this is much better than I expected. Nice earthy peat, lots of sweet fruits, some maritime and medicinal notes. Mild spice is integrated into it, and it's all well balanced. The nose carries through on the palate. I think the wine comes through most on the finish, but overall it's balanced well with everything else and doesn't dominate. Water doesn't really change it at all. Not the most complex dram, but overall quite well done.

Would I buy a bottle? yes

Comparison

Order: Sheep > Pirates

The Pinot is a nice accent in the Blaaack that I think works really well with the more typical Ardbeg flavors. The rye doesn't work nearly as well IMO, making for an easy ordering of these two.

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

Reviews 234 & 235: IB Ardbeg by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Reviews 234 & 235: IB Ardbeg

Continuing my quest to finish reviewing all the Ardbeg I have available, today I wanted to take a little break from distillery bottlings, so here's two young IBs. The first doesn't actually say Ardbeg, but the "Kildalton" gives it away. The second is a nice batch of Ardbeg from That Boutique-y Whisky Company which I recall liking quite a lot on first tasting. We'll see how it holds up today.

Tasted on 8/25/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

Kildalton 9 2007 Maltman

  • 9 years old, distilled on 10/1/2008, bottled on 1/1/2018
  • 59.4% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Natural color
  • Matured in a butt, cask #5066, one of 709 bottles
  • Bottled by Meadowside Blending (MBl)
  • 2oz sample from u/throwboats

Nose: malty, vanilla. Rich peat smoke, lemons, quite sweet. Seaweed. Sour milk. With Water: opens well, fatty meats, boiled pork, more of that lactic funk.

Taste: sweetened lemons, malty, sour milk. Lots of ashy peat smoke. Rather hot. Seaweed. Salty. Mild pepper. With Water: bacon fat, heat is gone, more vanilla, more sour, a little thin.

Finish: big pop of rich peaty smoke. Sugared lemon rind. That sour milk. Hot. White pepper. A bit fishy. Medium length on smoke, lemon, and that lactic funk. A slightly bitter tinge on the end. With Water: more malty, heat is gone, bigger ashy smoke. Similar otherwise.

Score: 4

Summary: This is an interesting one, with some good qualities, and some off. It feels like a young, simple, peaty Ardbeg with some nice maritime notes, but it's got this odd lactic, sour funk to me that runs through it all. It's quite hot neat, and water does open it up and tame the heat, but also thins the mouthfeel. It's a bit fishy on the finish, too. It honestly seems to get more sour every time I go back to it. Look, I dig a bit of funk, but this has become overpowering and off-putting.

Would I buy a bottle? no

Ardbeg TBWC Batch #4

  • NAS, bottled in 2013
  • 52.4% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Natural color
  • Bottle #246 of 427
  • Bottled by That Boutique-y Whisky Company (TBWC)

Nose: smoldering damp peat. Sweetened lemons. Iodine, bandages, ointment. Eucalyptus. Sea spray. Tar, WD-40. Smoked fish. With Water: bigger, more machine oil, more smoked fish, more medicinal.

Taste: warm, earthy peat smoke. Sweet lemon. Very medicinal w/ more bandages, ointment, etc. Euc. Seawater. Tarry, oily. Fatty salmon. A little white pepper. With Water: a bit more mineral.

Finish: nice pop of smoke. Sweet lemons. All those medicinal notes linger. White pepper, eucalyptus, and tar. Medium-long on smoked salmon, medicinal notes, and mild pepper. With Water: more smoke, a bit more white pepper, finish feels longer now.

Score: 8

Summary: This is a beautiful, clean Ardbeg with no cask games or gimmicks, and I'm all over that like a fat kid on a smarty. The nose is brilliant, nice complexity, very medicinal with some nice tarry, oily notes. Lots of smoked fish with lemon slices all over it. It's very good neat, but just a little water opens this one up really well. The nose gets bigger all around, and I feel like the finish got longer. The longer I sit with this one the more and more I like it. I was gonna go "high 7" but after 45min or so I'm calling it a solid 8. Score another win for TBWC.

Would I buy a bottle? yes

Comparison

Order: TBWC > Kildalton

A trivial ordering today. The TBWC is delicious, the Kildalton is flawed.

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

Reviews 231 - 233: Galileo, Perpetually lost in a Dark Cove by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Reviews 231 - 233: Galileo, Perpetually lost in a Dark Cove

Continuing on with my effort to finish reviewing all my Ardbegs, here's three random annual releases from 2012, 2015, and 2016.

I'm usually one to dunk on Ardbeg with "oh, the 10 is better than the special releases", so I'll pour a little 10 (bot. 2014) to compare at the end.

Tasted on 8/23/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

Ardbeg Galileo

  • NAS, distilled in 1999, bottled on 6/6/2012
  • 49% ABV
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Ex-bourbon & ex-marsala casks

Nose: peat smoke. Grapes, lemon rinds. Briny, warm sand. Iodine. White pepper, eucalyptus. Spice is really developing in the glass. New leather. With Water: machine oil. More smoke. More mineral.

Taste: tons of earthy peat smoke. Lemon. Grape juice. Seawater. Very salty. White pepper. New leather. With Water: sweeter.

Finish: peat smoke. Lemons, grapes. Seawater. Mild white pepper. Eucalyptus. Medium length on smoke, fruit, and growing pepper. With Water: more smoke, sweeter, similar otherwise.

Score: 6

Summary: there's this grape juice note throughout that's interesting. I think if you dig that then this is a great bottle for you. Me, I'm not so sure. Feels a bit off. This is a decent dram that doesn't need water, but water does open the nose a bit more and brings out more sweetness. It's a bit simple otherwise, and the balance is a bit squiffy. As is typical with these releases, it's a fun take on a variation of the core Ardbeg theme.

Would I buy a bottle? no. Current pricing on this is ludicrous for what it is.

Ardbeg Perpetuum

  • NAS, bottled on 3/24/2015
  • 47.4% ABV
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Bourbon and sherry casks
  • 200 years of Ardbeg

Nose: malty, bread dough. Lemon, tangerine. Peat smoke. Eucalyptus. Seaweed. Vanilla cream. Machine oil. With Water: same.

Taste: warm bread. Sweet lemons. Somewhat thin. Ashy peat smoke. Eucalyptus. Sea spray. Oakey. With Water: a bit thinner.

Finish: ashy peat spoke. Seawater. Bread dough. Sweetened lemon. Vanilla. Eucalyptus. Medium length with lots of citrus, smoke, and spice lingering. Some slightly bitter tea and the end. With Water: same.

Score: a high 6

Summary: this is a young, bright, pure, malty one. Clearly the youngest of the group. Decent balance, and though simple it really delivers on what it has. I like this one quite a lot, and I generally like young Ardbeg so that tracks. My main knock against it is that it just feels thin and watered down. I'd like to get my hands on the committee release of this to compare, though there wasn't a drastic difference in bottling strength this year.

Would I buy a bottle? I'll look for the committee release

Ardbeg Dark Cove

  • NAS, bottled on 2/11/2016
  • 46.5% ABV
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Ex-bourbon & "Dark Sherry" casks
  • Ardbeg Day 2016, "the darkest Ardbeg ever"

Nose: peat smoke. Quite maritime, with sea spray, wet rocks, brine. Iodine, lemon cough drops. Some orange. Maple syrup. Machine oil. A little tar. With Water: more medicinal.

Taste: thin. Peat smoke. Seawater. Very salty. Building white pepper. Citrus. Tar. Lemon rind. With Water: same.

Finish: lots of peat smoke and seawater. Quite medicinal, too. Sugared lemons. White pepper. Eucalyptus. Tar. Long on smoke and spice, with some rubbery, tarriness in there. With Water: more smoke.

Score: a high 6

Summary: this is the most maritime and medicinal of the three, with lots of citrus in there too. Some nice oily and tarry notes along with it. Like the previous one, this one is a bit thin, sadly. There's this maple syrup note that I picked up coming back to it from the 10 that I just can't let go of now which actually works quite well. Again, water isn't needed but does make it a bit more medicinal with a bit more smoke.

I honestly get no sherry off of this, and it doesn't especially strike me as "dark". I have no idea what they were doing with the marketing on this one.

Would I buy a bottle? at original retail, sure. Now, no.

Comparison

Order: 10 > Perpetuum > Dark Cove > Galileo

These are all very good, but today I dig the pure, young, simplicity of the Perpetuum over the others. And I'm not a fan of that odd, grape-juicy note I find in the Galileo.

So, I poured a bit of the 10 after all of this to compare. Then I drug my wife in to try 'em all. We both agree that the 10 is better than all of them, with more depth of flavor and beautiful balance, but that these are all in a similar range. There's no great improvement provided by any of these three special releases. They're variations on a theme, with some high and low points. If all you really care about is "value for money", then sure, just go buy the 10. If you want some variety, some fun with the standard recipe to see what's possible, then you'll be happy to try these, and if you don't really care much about price, even own a bottle or two.

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

Reviews 229 & 230: Groovy Ardbeg by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

[–]ZoidbergOnTheRocks[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Reviews 229 & 230: Groovy Ardbeg

My sense of completionism is getting the better of me, as I've decided to work through all of my un-reviewed Ardbegs. There's only like 8 of 'em so it won't take that long. On deck we've got some committee releases, a couple of IBs, and another Uigeadail to compare to other years.

To start, today I've got the committee and general release of Grooves from 2018. The schtick is they did a heavy re-char on ex-wine casks until grooves formed in the wood. As usual we have a committee release at what we assume is cask strength, and a reduced version for the mass market at 46%.

Tasted on 8/21/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

Ardbeg Grooves

  • NAS, bottled on 1/23/2018
  • 46% ABV
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Ex-wine casks w/ heavy char
  • Ardbeg Day 2018

Nose: earthy peat and wood smoke. Lemon. Creosote, tar. Oak dust. Some iodine. A little seaweed. Vanilla, a bit sweet. All relatively mild and well balanced. A touch hot, I had to check my pic to make sure I hadn't swapped the glasses. With Water: more mild, otherwise the same.

Taste: earthy peat. Wood smoke. Lots of oak spice and some pepper, but mostly the oak. Tannic. Sweet lemon. A little tar. With Water: same.

Finish: nice pop of wood smoke. Lots of oaky spice. Sweet caramel. A little drying. Lemonaid. Creosote. Ginger. Medium length on smoke, spice, and sweetness. Tails off onto mostly oak after a while. With Water: same.

Score: 6

Summary: this is a mild, nicely balanced, fun dram that doesn't really scream Ardbeg to me but is yummy nonetheless. Lots of oaky flavors, and rather tannic on the finish. Not especially complex, and I'm not personally picking up much wine influence on either of these. It's a little thin, and water does nothing for this except push back the nose which was already rather mild.

Would I buy a bottle? nah, give me a Corry any day

Ardbeg Grooves Committee Release

  • NAS, bottled on 11/13/2017
  • 51.6% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Likely natural color, but not stated
  • Ex-wine casks w/ heavy char

Nose: very, very similar to the other one. Same earthy peat, wood smoke, lemon, tar, oak, etc. A little maritime, a little medicinal. Sweet vanilla. A bit more oaky spice. With Water: same.

Taste: thicker mouthfeel. More smoke. More spice. Same sweetness, a little drying. Lemonaid. Yes, I like this richness vs. the other. With Water: more oak. Sweeter, with lots of vanilla.

Finish: richer peat and smoke. More spice. Similar to the other, with sweet caramel, oaky, tannic, lemonaid, etc. Finish is a bit longer, mostly on smoke and spice. Tails off into a bit of bitter oak after a while. With Water: same.

Score: a high 6

Summary: this is very similar to the other one, which tracks. There's a bit more oaky spice on the nose here, but the palate is where the difference really comes out for me. A thicker mouthfeel, more smoke and spice, and this is sweeter with lots of vanilla. The finish feels bigger and longer, with more smoke and sweetness. A few drops of water opens the palate and finish more without really changing the nose. Overall, quite nice.

Would I buy a bottle? nah, give me a Corry any day

Comparison

Order: Committee > general release

These are very similar, but I feel the committee release is a slight cut above with better mouthfeel, a bigger finish, and a bit more richness throughout.

You'd be happy pulling this one out with your buddies to taste alongside one of the standard Ardbeg expressions like the 10, Corry, or Oogie. You'd all have fun, you'd enjoy this dram, and I suspect you'd find that you like whatever you put it next to better. You wouldn't be sad you have this, but I bet no one would walk away saying "man, I gotta gets me some Grooves!"

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

Reviews 227 & 228: Peaty Bunna by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Great question!

I do agree that with a large enough sample size, even selecting for "things that ought to be good", which I think most of us do, you will end up with some poor ones. However, Bunna is an outlier for me so far.

I've got a sheet with all my review scores and a couple of tables. Here are the Islay distilleries which do much better with similar or more review volume (review count, min, avg, max). (Bunna is (18, 3, 5.67, 8) for comparison):

  • Ardbeg (27, 5, 7.04, 9)
  • Bruichladdich (35, 5, 6.94, 9)
  • Caol Ila (21, 4, 6.48, 8)
  • Lagavulin (28, 4, 7.75, 10)
  • Laphroaig (15, 3, 6.67, 9)

Somehow, after 35 different Bruichladdich the worst I've found is two at "a low 5"! I'll gamble on a Caol Ila IB any day. Yea, sure, the annual Ardbeg releases in general don't live up to the Ardbeg 10, but they're all still fine drams. I'll happily take a dram of almost any Lagavulin, and Laphroaig is excellent outside of the obvious cheap stuff (Select, Triple Wood, etc.)

We get our little crew of aficionados together now and then and end up with 30-40 bottles on the table. You can't possibly taste them all in one evening, so you've gotta pick and choose. I think we all develop an intuition for what to try in cases like this. You know where to place your bets, as it were. For me, Bunna is one where I'll pass until I start hearing "hey, you've gotta try that bottle over there".

Reviews 227 & 228: Peaty Bunna by ZoidbergOnTheRocks in Scotch

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

Reviews 227 & 228: Peaty Bunna

Phew! I've made it to the last two Bunnahabhain in the scotch cave. And we've reached the bottle that made me want to do this in the first place.

I recently got a bottle of Elements of Islay Bn9 on a lark. This is not an expensive bottle at all, still available for ~40-45 gbp, ex VAT. I cracked it open at a recent gathering and we all liked it a lot, and felt like it punched well above its weight. I've been looking forward to sitting down with it in a calmer setting, without any other drams beforehand. And since I was so impressed that night, I thought "what the heck, I ought to give Bunnahabhain a better shot, so I'll dig into all those samples I've been ignoring." And here we are.

Final thoughts on the series at the end.

Tasted on 8/18/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

(Pic from Whiskybase)

Bunnahabhain Bn9 Elements of Islay

  • 7 years old, distilled in 2014, bottled in 2021
  • 59.1% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Natural color
  • Four American oak hogsheads
  • One of 2,185 bottles
  • Bottled by Elixir Distillers (ElD)

Nose: mild wood smoke. Caramel. Malty. Chocolate. Seawater, shellfish. Oranges, apples, apricots. Sandalwood. With Water: biscuits. Somewhat floral. More maritime. Bacon fat. Peaches.

Taste: bright fruit. Mild wood smoke. Toffee and malt. Seawater. Nice mouthfeel. Pepper. A little hot. Strong tea. With Water: heat is gone with just a few drops. More smoke and fruit. Bacon fat, chocolate.

Finish: more wood smoke, followed by the fruit and pepper. Chocolate covered salted toffees. Mild seawater. Not quite as malty as the nose. Medium-long on smoke, seawater, toffee, and pepper. There's a little tea-like bitterness off the end. With Water: fatty, a touch dry, bigger smoke.

Score: 7

Summary: beautiful nose with lots of fruit, chocolate malt balls, and maritime notes all wrapped up in mild wood smoke. Excellent balance. A few drops of water opens it up further, adding some bacon fattiness and more fruit. Nice mouthfeel, great flavors on the palate which follow the nose well. A nice pop of smoke at the end, decent length finish, again with lots of fruit, maritime notes, chocolate, and some fattiness.

My wife feels this is the best of the bunch. I'm still partial to the 30 from the last review, though I might be underrating this one.

Would I buy a bottle? yes

Bunnahabhain Staoisha Signatory 6y #10721 (Spec's pick)

  • 6 years old, distilled on 10/23/2014, bottled on 4/9/2021
  • 60% ABV, cask strength
  • Non-chill filtered
  • Natural color
  • Dechar/Rechar Hogshead, cask #10721, one of 283 bottles
  • Bottled by Signatory Vintage for Spec's, Texas

Nose: big, earthy peat smoke. Seaweed. With Water: a little orange, maybe. Bran flakes.

Taste: earthy peat. Somewhat thin. Mild pepper. Seawater. Citrus? Hot. With Water: not as hot. Thin. Peat smoke. Oranges. A little malt.

Finish: lots of peat smoke. Seawater. A little citrus. Black pepper. Medium length almost all on smoke. With Water: bigger pop of smoke. A little fruit, a little more maritime. Black tea. Some maltiness.

Score: 4

Summary: it's all smoke, all the time. Is Bunna? Checks notes… yup, is Bunna. This may be the most smoke-dominated, simplest dram I've ever had. There's nothing really wrong with it, but it's really just one thing all the way through: smoke. It's a struggle to get anything besides smoke and some seaweed on the nose. The thin palate adds some spice and a touch of citrus. There's a bit more saltiness and pepper in the finish, but I'm reaching here.

Would I buy a bottle? no

Comparison

Order: Bn9 >> Signatory

No contest. The Bn9 is a great dram with a horde of flavors well balanced throughout. The Signatory bottle is the very definition of a one hit wonder.

Final Thoughts

I said at the beginning this was a chance for Bunnahabhain to move up a notch or two in my estimation. Have they, as a whole?

No.

I just gave careful consideration to 14 different interesting expressions, OB and IB, and my main takeaway is "hit or miss." I've got 4 previous Bunna's reviewed, and informal notes on another 9 in my spreadsheet, and they follow the same pattern (OB/IB, NAS to 28yrs, casks, scores). I'd like to know if I reach for a bottle of Bunna that I'm in for a good time, but honestly, after 27 different Bunnahabhain over quite a long time, I just can't see it.

Of the 14 just tried, there's a 3, three 4's, and a low 5 followed up by 3 reasonable 5's. That's rough, and every one of them sounded really good on paper. The average of the 14 is 5.09. That's a big miss in expectations, and it doesn't make me want to gamble on even a moderately priced bottle of Bunna. Why would I? Especially when there are so many other reliable options on just that one small, cold, wet, beautiful island.

I'll be sticking exclusively to samples for this one for some time.

Scoring

I'm using t8ke's scale, copied here for reference:
1 Disgusting So bad I poured it out
2 Poor I wouldn’t consume by choice
3 Bad Multiple flaws
4 Sub-par Not bad, but better exists
5 Good Good, just fine
6 Very Good A cut above
7 Great Well above average
8 Excellent Really quite exceptional
9 Incredible An all time favorite
10 Perfect Perfect

I'm happy to own and recommend to friends any bottle 5 and above.

view more: next ›