After getting a comment on the last review I did on this bottling of Bruichladdich, I figured I might have to go back and maybe do it a bit more justice. Coming back upon my notes to review what I wrote last time I noticed at the very end I posted for myself a small annotation saying revisit. I completely forgot the last review was rushed being I had to finish it in a less time consuming manner (As much as I would like to take my time with every whisk(e)y).
N:Spicy with toffee powering through. Cinammon and nutmeg are evolving in the glass along with a wheat note. The spices combine with a fruity medley, apple, pears, tangerines and a lightly bitter dark chocolate note. Semi-sweet brown sugar, progressively sweeter and apple tart. Pleasant citrus slowly forms into more fruit resembling poached pears.
B:A thick lip with closely collected medium to large beads forms. The legs are medium in size and fall slowly. The colour is a rich gold.
T:Slight spiciness starts and soon forms into baked apple desert. Cinammon, brown sugar caramelized and lightly toasted apple bits. There is a slight burnt feel on the back of the palate. More touches of tangerines and syrupy pears, with a honey buffer before the toffe strikes again. Nice and buttery but still could use more of a body as it feels very light on the palate.
F:Clean to start with another trace of toffee. The toffee becomes burnt/toasted though it is still pleasant, with lightly toasted pears and reoccuring brown sugar. Honey touches up at the end with an almond paste.
So after looking over my last notes I was quite shocked. I am not aware of what has changed or what might have happened so I believe it should be chalked up to a goof. These reviews are both fairly varying, but I enjoyed it the second time around. I still have problems with it though in consideration that I feel you are paying a premium for exclusivity and age. The whisky in its own is nice, but is it really worth 380 dollars? If it came down to an evaluation without cost efficiency, I would call this a 73-75. The actual "price included" rating can be found below. Thanks for reading this long winded story!
The ratings discussion is just about establishing a "common language" with the rating system. Otherwise readers will often have to put in a huge amount of work just to interpret ratings. Before the system overhaul I wanted to rate some whiskies "3" or "4", but have changed that to fit a different convention. The so-called "professional" standard or scale for ratings in use is still somewhat variable. Most use a scale I would describe as similar to that used by Michael Jackson, and there are almost never "96" or even "92" rated whiskies. Using this scale, almost everything gets 70s and 80s. Others use something closer to Jim Murray's Whiskey Bibles, which rate a lot of whiskies from 88 to 96. Personally I like neither scale very much, but I am willing to speak a common language because I see the desirability to do so. So, given that choice, I prefer to rate more similarly to Murray, because, while there are no "100" whiskies for me, there are a few that I consider truly transcendent, and on which I cannot imagine any improvement. On the other hand, I do still think that ri(1), for example, deserves a "4". This ratings convention is really just like obeying traffic signals: it makes everyones life easier.
This has become extremely long winded since last I commented. How I felt about this whisky was out of personal opinion. I do not want my review to be taken into strict consideration of a rating. I could indefinitely make bad decisions by only considering that aspect. The point of reviewing for me is to give people an idea of what is in the bottle, not if it is an 80-90 point whisky. Marking a whisky to me is tedious, but I give it a value on appreciation of a few things pointed out above. If I need to post my rating system on my profile again so people understand how I rate things, so be it. It has been deleted recently though due to the fact I did not think I would get an uproar of people taking this critique past the point of where I care to go. None of these prior comments have been taken to heart in the aspect of feeling uncomfortable. Constructive criticism is good and it allows people to advance. On another note with all due respect, I will not change my scoring system. For me this is a fair score. The review alone is enough to pass judgement discerning if it is a whisky for you, once again reaffirming that score alone should not solely be taken into perspective without any other influence. Thanks for hearing me out, look forward to everyones responses and reviews.