Lagavulin 12 Year Old bottled 2013 13th Release

Great review. Does anyone know if this is just the regular expression, just 4 years younger than her more famous older sister. Or was there a difference in barley mix, distillation process, cask selection,... ?

See, this is why I don't get why people equate age with value. This whisky is described as awesome. "Lagavulin perfection"! It's around $95 USD (at least in my area). That's pricey but surely less pricey than many many malts that deliver less. What if it was 25 years old and tasted exactly the same? Would it become a steal at $95?

I think we should consider age to be nothing more than a producer's expense. When it's well aged we can UNDERSTAND why it must be priced higher (because it truly costs more to produce), but I don't think the aging actually makes it worth more unless your enjoyment is enhanced.

The experience of drinking this whisky is awesome. It costs $95. Those are the two prime data points in my mind—and P.S., they aged it 12 years to achieve that effect.

OK, I'm off that. :) Great review. I often consider laying out the big money (for me) on this bottle, and now I feel a little closer to doing so. Thanks Misty!

I should, perhaps, have added that my comment about equating age with value wasn't a criticism of Misty in particular. This is a very common attitude amongst us that just doesn't resonate with me. See almost any review of Kilchoman, for example.

I'm working on a bottle of 2011 right now and I absolutely love it. I'll be writing it up within the week, I expect. Any insight into how the 2011 measures up to the others you tried?

Sorry if I come across too enthusiastic, but it really is that good if you like this style of whisky. Such pinpoint sweet coastal peat perfection.

Maybe it’s that gentle sweet fudgy entry or that beautiful grapefruit finish. I dunno…

It’s the type of whisky that gives you a lovely sensory memory of the taste. I can still taste it a week later!

I can’t remember the scores for 2011, or the others offhand. They were all good, but 2013 was the obvious winner by at least 5-8 points or so (unanimous panel decision). Actually I think we had 2011 at 89.

I think the 2011 is very similar to the 2013. I got a wonderful feeling sipping the 2011 with the hair on the back of my neck tingling. Misty used "euphoric" and that is a good descriptor. I get a similar feeling with the 2013, but slightly more subdued. Definitely worth the money if you like peaty whisky and a big improvement over the 2012. However, good luck finding a bottle. I've only found one.

Is the vintage labeling obvious? That is, can you easily tell whether you're looking at a 2013 on the shelf?

I haven't seriously shopped this bottle before. Thanks!

On the back bottom is etched a code. 2013 would be L3 with the next three numbers being the day in that year. For example, 38 would be Feb 7, 350 would be Dec 16.

The vintage itself is printed clearly on the front label. No need for codes, although it's always nice to have specifics!

Oooppppssss! You're right! I was thinking of the 16 code. Of course it's on the label!

Hi @Misty, kudos for an enthusiastic review! I have had two bottles of the 2012 release because I liked it so much, and after reading your review I have decided to go for a bottle of the 2013 version, too. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Thanks Pierre!

Will do. I honestly can't see how the 2013 could be improved - other than the price.

I'll have a few more interesting reviews on the way soon!