How is Uigeadail made?

Back in 2003 & 2004 when Uigeadail was first released Stuart Thompson said that it contained some 10yo, some 13yo, and some good old casks from the 1970's (this according to Whiskyfun). We also know that it contains a mixture of bourbon casks and sherry casks. What is the exact ratio? Their not telling.

Further, the recipe has changed because they ran out of the old 70's stock. However, they have somehow managed to retain the same flavor profile over the last decade. I have in my reserves bottles of Uigeadail from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, & 2011. One day I will do a major comparison of Uigeadail through the years. In fact, I think some of the more recent bottlings have been every bit as brilliant (if different) then the early bottlings.

The Uigeadail is the first no-age-statement bottling that I really fell in love with and turned me off of the "age-matters" bias. I love that Ardbeg (and now other distilleries) are releasing a specific flavor profile based on the flavor and not the age (think Laphroaig Quarter Cask). That doesn't mean I want to lose the age statements, but I like the variety. My belief is that when you say that you are going to put out a high quality single malt with a balanced mixture of peat smoke and sherry at 54.2% without the confines of age that you give yourself a greater selection of casks to achieve success, quality and consistency (just my opinion). I have watched other distilleries like Glenmorangie and Macallan struggle to maintain the consistency of their second level expressions and ultimately drop the age statements (Macallan Cask Strength use to say 10 year old; the Glenmorangie wood finishes like the port wood all use to say 12 years).

I do think the overwhelming success of Uigeadail (and the dwindling older stock) lead to dropping the 17yo and the 1990 'Beist in favor of the Corryverckan. And that success has lead to this dearth of non-age-statements (Supernova, SN2010, Alligator, & Day) which has caused a bit of a backlash. Obviously their are logistic issues here and a huge lack of old Ardbeg stock.

So for now I will continue to buy the Uigeadail and the Corry and hope that the quality doesn't slip (obviously batch to batch things will be different: I am speaking of an ongoing decline). I'll try and taste the new crazy no-age-experiment, but I'm not going to get caught up in the hype. And I won't lose sleep if I don't get a bottle. I'm really waiting for the next standard age statement.

All that said I would love it if all distilleries listed the vatted casks (like the Devil's Punch Bowl by Arran) on all non-age-statement bottles. Sure it is totally impractical for the distilleries . . . but we can dream.

Sorry for the overly long response that went far beyond the bounds of your question.

Thanks a lot! That's the kind of stuff I'm coming here to connosr for. Very interesting. I should read up some more on the history of Ardbeg. I never pondered much over the dynamics affecting the whisky output from a distillery that's been closed for a longer period of time, as opposed to starting from scratch. But they are obviously two completely different things.

If it takes adding a few drops from young casks and dropping a number on a label to create such a good whisky I'm not complaining. I'm not buying whisky for the age. Well, as long as young stuff is so substantial that the production cost is significantly decreased, then I'd like the bottle to drop in price accordingly. Just my opinion, the distillery can put what ever damn price they wish on their bottles. And I'll happily pay the current price for Uigeadail regardless. But yeah, it would be nice to know roughly what goes into the vat. Couldn't that be a marketing tool even? The customers would love it at least.

Respectfully, I disagree. I've found a huge difference between the first edition of ugie and the current. The old 70's casks really showed beautifully. The current editions are a vatting of bourbon aged 10 year old and sherry matured (sorry, I forget if it's a finish or full term) 8 year old (hence the choice to go NAS). This information is from a tour of the distillery in October of 2011.

FederalNate - Let me first say that you are welcome to disagree with me. I am not attempting to convince you of my opinion. However, I want to clarify the point I was trying to make: I believe that some of the current bottlings of Uigeadail (since the recipe was forced to evolve) are every bit as brilliant as the early batches. I recognize that the current batches are different, but they can still be amazing. (There have been some less then stellar batches in the last few years, but so were a few of the earlier batches). What makes Uigeadail work so well, in my opinion, is the amazing harmony and balance of peat, sweet, smoke, and sherry. I believe that this interaction is still amazingly balanced and harmonious while obviously very different from the early batches. That balance and integration of flavors are that profile I was attempting to say have remained consistent. I have tasted a number of other distillers who have tried to integrate sherry with peat with much less success. I am amazingly impressed that Ardbeg started out with a flavor profile created using 10yo & 13yo bourbon casks with 25yo+ sherry casks, and has continued to make amazing whisky under the same name with 10yo bourbon casks and 8yo sherry casks – and most likely younger whisky over the last few years. Is that clear? Obviously, it is my opinion and I respect if you disagree.

By the way thanks for that info on the current Uigeadail make up – I really appreciate it. I am jealous of your distillery tour last year. Further, my understanding is that Ardbeg doesn’t finish casks: they only fully mature. But I’m sure that could change . . .

I think that the Committee release of the Young Uigeadail “Oogling” demonstrated Ardbeg’s attempt to hint at the future of Uigeadail. According to Whiskyfun (again) the Young Uigeadail was a vatting of three young bourbon barrels and one even younger sherry butt (around 4 years old).

@NilsG – Originally the Uigeadail was expensive compared to the line up. If memory serves it was slightly more expensive then the 17yo when it first came out in 2003. I remember having to pay $85+ for it 8 years ago. Today, I can typically find it between $55-$70. Granted I have lived in several different regions since those days and you may pay more in your town. For me that seems fair enough for the product. At best it is cheaper then it was nearly a decade ago. At worst it is about the same price it always was.

Are the differences between the reasent bottlings so much that one might be straight disappointed. What I'm worried about is that even though thevsample bottle I got was AMAZING, when I buy a bottle I will not have the same experience, maybe forever be like a heroin addict looking for that first hit again.

@NilsG, try one bottle, then if you think it's great get 2 or 3 more from the same batch. The batch numbers are on the bottles. More information in my review of Uigeadail, A Tale of Two Uigeadails. The review and long comment train specifically addressed batch variations.

@NilsG,sorry posted from my wife's Connosr Account. From @Victor.

@Victor Yes I read that excellent review! But it made me worried. I know my heart will be raising when pour the first dram from the bottle...is it going to be all that I'm hoping for, or a whole bottle of "remember that first dram? Well this ain't it" that I will have to go through before getting another shot at a different batch (I have only limited storage space and budget for whisky, and won't have two bottles of the same at once)

Anyway, will have a look at the sample bottle to try to find the batch number.

@NilsG that would be interesting to find out if your sample bottle had a batch number on it. Please let us know if you find it. I have tried two of the batches from 2011 (L11 XXX XX:XX 6M). You have obviously read Victor's account of two batches from 2010.

The biggest question is the batch number of the bottle in the store you are picking up. I just picked up a bottle of Ardbeg 10yo for about $15 more then I normally buy it simply because it had a batch number I had heard was fantastic (L11 195 XX:XX 6ML). Sure enough, it was lights out Ardbeg 10yo at its best. I think it is so much better to buy informed on the batch number.

@Nock wow, I'm so starting a new thread just for recommendations for Uigeadail batch numbers.

I couldn't find any number on the small bottle, unless you have to dig under the label or something. The shop where I got it from had two full bottles of Uigeadail left, with the number L12 011.

I don't know what I can tell from it, but the sample Uigeadail came I'm the same box as an Ardbeg 10 with the number L12 132 (if my memory is correct). I guess the sample Uigeadail could be from any batch bottled at the same time or earlier than the 10. Either way the L12 011 Uigeadail in that shop is my best option.

@NilsG, well, you either solicit other people's experience of L12 011 and make a choice based on that feedback, or else you just buy a bottle and find out how good it is for yourself.

@Victor yeah, doubt it will be a bad whisky anyway. Will grab one before they're gone so I don't have to wonder what I missed out on.

The L12 011 is absolutely great! I still have have half of the sample bottle left so I compared the two. Nose and taste identical, if I was told they were from the same bottle I would not have doubted it. However maybe I get a little bit more bitterness in the finish from the big bottle, I could be imagining. Either way buying this bottle was the oposite if a mistake.