Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Laphroaig Cask Strength 10 Year Old

Cask is King, Long Live Cask!

1 592

RReview by @Rigmorole

28th Jul 2013

0

  • Nose
    ~
  • Taste
    ~
  • Finish
    ~
  • Balance
    ~
  • Overall
    92

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Now here is a savory scotch if I've ever tasted one!

Aromatic gifts of pine sap, iodine (of course), seaweed, oak, green olives, cloves.

In the mouth, it opens up into crispy bacon, sherry, smoked trout, buttered toast, fireplace ash.

As it trickles down the mid-palate, savory flavors take a turn for the sweeter, transforming themselves mercurially and magically into chocolate, chickory coffee, Rocky Patel robusto cigar wrapper, lemon, vanilla bean, and Ritter Sport wafer.

The finish is long, lush, and multi-various with hints of many of the flavors listed in the palate that flitter across the psychological gulf from the tongue to the brain.

When compared with the Quarter Cask and the 18, The Laphroaig 10 Year Cask Strength really shines. Yes, I can easily say that I prefer it to either.

The Quarter Cask, while quite good, simply does not have the maturity and range of the Cask Strength. It is sharper and more upfront with the wood to the detriment of other more subtle and dazzling flavors which mature across the full ten year spectrum that the QC simply does not have, despite the smaller barrel.

The Laphroaig 18, which is admitted more sophisticated, is also more mellow and does not have quite the bombastic range of things happening in the mouth. It is a more gentile version of the 10 cask, and that has its advantages. I feel the 18 is generally underrated whereas the Cask 10 is generally overlooked. And that is a mistake on the part of those who have not deigned to try it when it was available in pubs and stores near them.

Batch: 3. Bottled on Jan 11. No year listed.

Related Laphroaig reviews

5 comments

Rigmorole commented

Color is lighter than full gold. No fake additives here! No "caramel" crap to be seen or tasted. Happy happy joy joy!

6 years ago 0

@GotOak91
GotOak91 commented

This sounds excellent I wonder how this will stack up against my recently bought Batch No. 4. (I guess there's only one way to find out :).

6 years ago 0

Jonathan commented

@Rigmorole: Interesting review! I agree with your general assessment, though I like the QC and 18 for different reasons. I think that "overlooked" and "overrated" apply to both the CS and the 18, probably because at the moment they are priced much lower than other comparable whiskies. (Take, for example, Lagavulin 12 CS, which costs much more than the Laga 16.) To be honest, I hope that Laphroaig continues to be overlooked so that the prices stay where they are.

@GotOak91: the OO4 batch is excellent. As much as I liked the OO3, but I like the 004 even better.

6 years ago 0

Jonathan commented

Just tasting it again and I wanted to add that Batch 004 has more of the wood and sugar that are recognizable from the QC. The 003 is more "old school." I no longer have the 003 around, so I cant do a direct comparison. The think that the fifth batch may already be out.

6 years ago 0

@MaltActivist
MaltActivist commented

Great review @rigmorole - I just managed to get my hands on the Batch 4 and 5 so now I have Batches 3,4 and 5.

I'm planning on doing a review of all three side by side.

PS - the year of bottling of the batch 3 is 2011

Stay in touch ;-)

6 years ago 1Who liked this?

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in