Any One for a Scotch?

cool, I'll go pick one up.


Sonick, your avatar chick is bouncing in perfect time to the beat of the song I'm playing, lol.

Originally Posted by dhc905

Click to expand...

Hm, no love for the Glenlivet 21. I took possession of it today and I'll see if it was worth paying the small premium over the HP18 it replaced.

Got to say, from a packaging perspective it's already a winner. Now if only it tastes good.

That would not be a trade that I would make. Glenlivet 21 is by no means bad, its just not as good as HP18.

I'm all about diversity, except for my laga 16. That I won't trade for anything

Originally Posted by Master-Classter

Click to expand...

can someone tell me about the differences (taste, price, preference) between Laphroaig QC and 10yr? Also, I'm just starting to get into single malts... so far I've got some red label for mixing and to supply plebian friends/family, a HP12 for personal everyday drinking, and then I'm thinking of adding 1-2 single malts with unique profiles... I was thinking the Ardbeg 10, maybe the laphroaig? Talisker? other suggestions? Ideally under $100, and somewhat unique. I'm just looking for a nice round-table of unique profiled single malts... also, is the price difference worth is for Beam black over the regular white label? Thanks!
Personally...and I am admittedly biased toward Laphroaig QC...I find the taste of raw grain alcohol a little harsh. And by the time my palatte has recovered enough to fully appreciate the peat and the caramel and the iodine that lingers on the tongue and in the back of your mouth, those flavours have disappeared. Laphroaig 10 is, to my taste, much, much harsher than the QC. The reason being that age and exposure to the wood in the barrels goes a long way towards converting that grain alcohol taste into something far more complex and subtle. Here is a very interesting series of essays about single malts from someone who is not trying to sell a product or trying to make a reputation as a reviewer. I corresponded with him for a little bit about this very point and he suggested that...as we all know or assume...malts get better with age. And that any malt under 10 years old is liable to seem a bit harsh to people like me. He also made the point that some folks like that raw grain alcohol hit and some folks don't. I'm in the latter group and, to me, Arbeg 10 is even more raw than the Laphroaig 10. Whereas the Nam Beist is almost the perfect Islay. To experience a cross-section, I have a pretty good Speyside--Cragganmore 12--I like Talisker real well, and Glenmorangie and Lagavulin 16 are rotation regulars on my shelf. But there are others that sit perfectly well with me...mostly Islays, however. You have to experiment to find your own druthers but, in general, stay with malts that are older than 12 years old and at least 16.

Originally Posted by Master-Classter

Click to expand...

can someone tell me about the differences (taste, price, preference) between Laphroaig QC and 10yr?

Also, I'm just starting to get into single malts... so far I've got some red label for mixing and to supply plebian friends/family, a HP12 for personal everyday drinking, and then I'm thinking of adding 1-2 single malts with unique profiles... I was thinking the Ardbeg 10, maybe the laphroaig? Talisker? other suggestions? Ideally under $100, and somewhat unique.
I'm just looking for a nice round-table of unique profiled single malts...

10yr or 10yr CS? Difference is a lot more than just ABV.

QC has no age statement but people speculate it is between 5-8yrs. 10yr is obviously 10yr.

10yr is dirt cheap. QC and 10yr CS are about the same where I am (about $50 each). The rest of your questions really depend on whether you're talking about 10yr or 10yr CS.

Feeling lazy so here's a post I made about SMS suggestions.

Originally Posted by I<3Bacon

Click to expand...

QC has no age statement but people speculate it is between 5-8yrs.
You're right, there is no age statement but it is aged in smaller barrels...75% smaller, IIRC...and so there is more whisky in contact with the wood for longer than the same whisky in a larger barrel. Supposedly, this accelerates the aging process. And for me, I would have to say I can buy that--the difference between the two mentioned is night and day.

Originally Posted by DWFII

Click to expand...

You're right, there is no age statement but it is aged in smaller barrels...75% smaller, IIRC...and so there is more whisky in contact with the wood for longer than the same whisky in a larger barrel. Supposedly, this accelerates the aging process. And for me, I would have to say I can buy that--the difference between the two mentioned is night and day.

Right and I also buy into this logic. The youth of the whisky also helps preserve that mouthful of peat you get with every sip. That said, the QC doesn't quite have the same characteristics of Laphroaig's other bottlings and I'd say it's not a good representation of the distillery. It's just too easy going (not to mention a skewed peat to smoke ratio), however it is the Laphroaig you can drink everyday.

Also, I'm not quite sure where you were going with your previous post... lots of mentioning of grain alcohol but none of the whiskies you mentioned contain it?

Originally Posted by I<3Bacon

Click to expand...

Right and I also buy into this logic. The youth of the whisky also helps preserve that mouthful of peat you get with every sip. That said, the QC doesn't quite have the same characteristics of Laphroaig's other bottlings and I'd say it's not a good representation of the distillery. It's just too easy going (not to mention a skewed peat to smoke ratio), however it is the Laphroaig you can drink everyday. Also, I'm not quite sure where you were going with your previous post... lots of mentioning of grain alcohol but none of the whiskies you mentioned contain it?

I mentioned the taste of raw grain alcohol...as opposed to the taste of aged grain alcohol, ie. whisky.

Originally Posted by dhc905

Click to expand...

Hm, no love for the Glenlivet 21. I took possession of it today and I'll see if it was worth paying the small premium over the HP18 it replaced. Got to say, from a packaging perspective it's already a winner. Now if only it tastes good.
There has never been an expression of Glenlivet that I have enjoyed*. It just has so much less going on than HP. * I spoke in error. Except for Nadurra.

I cracked this open tonight.... I like it a little more than their Signature 12 yr old.

Picked up a couple goodies... Got a Bavarian single malt. Had some of their other expressions that were not bad. This is just a small bottle.

Also--an independent bottling. **** I just packed it up, but its a 14 year old aged in red wine barrels. Proprietor recommended it highly.

quick query, whats the 411 on these swedish, kiwi, french etc scotches

I don't know how someone could like scotch. To me it's the most vile nauseatingly awful beverage in existence.

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

Click to expand...

whats the 411 on these swedish, kiwi, french etc scotches

I have literally never heard of Swedish or French whisk(e)y, but I understand New Zealand has some interesting offerings (including peated ones thanks to domestic peat bogs).

Originally Posted by DWFII

Click to expand...

Not to be picky but unless I'm mistaken if they don't come from Scotland, they cannot, technically, legally or ethically, be Scotch.

You are not mistaken. In fact, the governing body that dictates what a "Scotch" whisky or "Single Malt Scotch" whisky is is further tightening down regulations on where and how long the whisky must be matured.

Not to be picky but I wouldn't use "grain alcohol taste" unless it has grain alcohol in it.

Originally Posted by andrew96

Click to expand...

I don't know how someone could like scotch. To me it's the most vile nauseatingly awful beverage in existence.

As with all things, you can't pass judgment on all Scotch from one bottling. There are huge differences in quality across the board (not to mention wide ranges in flavor profiles).

Originally Posted by I<3Bacon

Click to expand...

I have literally never heard of Swedish or French whisk(e)y, but I understand New Zealand has some interesting offerings (including peated ones thanks to domestic peat bogs).



You are not mistaken. In fact, the governing body that dictates what a "Scotch" whisky or "Single Malt Scotch" whisky is is further tightening down regulations on where and how long the whisky must be matured.

Not to be picky but I wouldn't use "grain alcohol taste" unless it has grain alcohol in it.

As with all things, you can't pass judgment on all Scotch from one bottling. There are huge differences in quality across the board (not to mention wide ranges in flavor profiles).



I'm sure, although if I try Tropicana orange juice and hate it I doubt I'll like simply orange, orange juice.