Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Loch Lomond Blue Label NAS

Plain Awful

0 569

@PandemoniumReview by @Pandemonium

26th Jun 2016

0

  • Nose
    17
  • Taste
    15
  • Finish
    17
  • Balance
    20
  • Overall
    69

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

Now what will I review today? The good, the bad, the popular or the obscure? Nah, let us try some pure Lowland awfulness, the ugly duckling, the shit stopper. Of course I am talking about the low budget single malt abomination, called Loch Lomond. Now I have not yet tastes anything of what the new management has conjured up in their renewed line-up, so I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt. My criticism will only focus on the old product from the Glen Catherine era. Ok to start on a positive note, I always liked the labelling of the old Loch Lomond, it was classy. And the pricing was ok. You could hardly blame them for robbing you blind like others did.

Now this bottle: Aged to perfection in old oak casks on the banks of Loch Lomond it reads on the bottle, well everything except the words “oak” and “cask” are basically a lie. The whisky community unanimously decided a long time ago that the Loch Lomond brand was something is far from perfect. Nor can they confirm that their casks were genuinely "old" or that the distillery is situated on the bonny banks of Loch Lomond.


Description: the old entry-level Loch Lomond, a no-age-statement blue label, bottled at 40.0% ABV.

Nose: mostly smells of porridge, but beware the milk has gone bad. Notes of yeast and copper, but a sour scent of fermentation keeps lingering on, like a sweaty t-shirt? Some may find it harmless, but I evidently take offence.

Mouth: light bodied almost ephemeral, but on the palate… oh boy what a piece of work. It is course and crude, like sandpapering the taste buds off your tongue, how is this only 40% again? I can barely distinguish notes of cereal, cardboard, some milk and copper.

Finish: medium long, more cardboard, grey pepper and cigarette buds.


Verdict: awful, just plain awful. I know it was never designed as an upper class malt and just a by-product of Lomond fuelled blends, but there is no excuse for putting this on the market as a single malt. So when your running short on cash try to grab something from the supermarket’s blend section and leave this one alone.

Related Loch Lomond reviews

5 comments

@Ol_Jas
Ol_Jas commented

The beast!

I agree that its pricing and packaging are its selling points. (They were for me—well, that plus my relative single malt ignorance when I was in Scotland a few years ago looking for stuff I never saw back home in the US).

I also agree that its grossness is its main drawback. (Funny how that goes!) I remember "industrial dead flowers."

3 years ago 0

@Pandemonium
Pandemonium commented

@OlJas I'm hearing positive things about the new releases. Not that it is 'good' in any way, but that it has become drinkable to yes even acceptable. But I don't think I will try a sample first next time, before buying a full bottle (even if it is still dirt cheap).

3 years ago 0

@Frost
Frost commented

Sounds like it's good for cleaning belt buckles.

3 years ago 0

@Alexsweden
Alexsweden commented

Not one to try I gather.. :)

3 years ago 0

@Pierre_W
Pierre_W commented

Great review, @Pandemonium! The "shit stopper", oooh, hahaha! Never had one so far - and probably never will!

3 years ago 0

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in