So, what are you drinking now?

Last night I had a nice glass of the Glenrothes while building an Ikea wardrobe. Not that I can recommend it to everyone, but it seems to hold the weight I have put in it. (the wardrobe, not the scotch!) :)

@Mantisking, Ed Kohl, who has ImpEx Company gave the Isle of Arran/Kilchoman/Isle of Skye tasting . Ed has been in the whisky business since 1978, and selects casks for the independent bottler Chieftain. He comes to Baltimore twice a year, in fall and spring, to give tastings. .

I see Pappy Van Winkle 15 yo just got the critical mass today to make Connosr's highest rated list. Did it ever!

I will now have a glass of Pappy 15 to toast Julian Van Winkle, his descendents, and his whiskeys.

@two-bit-cowboy , I whole heartedly agree that the Lagavulin 12 outpaces the 16. The recent bottles of Lag 16 of slipped. I really like the Lag 12.

@Mantisking...thanks for the clarifying info!...sounds like Caol Ila and Laphroaig could be the winners (Ardbeg would likely provide too much smoke, imho), along with Ledaig and Ardmore.

@Benancio...the Peat Monster I felt to be very nicely balanced between peat and smoke, without any one component overpowering the others. I say this in part because I find that I prefer (generally speaking) the 'sweet peat' of sherry influenced Islay's such as Lagavulin 16.

The balance in the PM provides the "truer" peat profile that I associate with bourbon cask influenced Islays (the colour of the PM also suggests little or no sherry influence), without allowing the peat notes to become too vegetal in nature (a la what can happen with younger Bowmores, in my limited experience). The Laphroaig QC is an Islay that I love, and the PM allows the signature medicinal note of the Laphroaig (or at least what seems to be Laphroaig, imho) to come through, again without being overpowering.

Isle of Jura 10 yo.. Great island malt!

@Benancio...with respect to your comment about the slippage of Lagavulin 16. I have a bottle that would have been produced in 2010 or early 2011 (I'd have to check again) and 'WhiskyJoe' has a bottle that he purchased earlier this year, and appears to have been bottled in 2012, iirc.

We found a surprisingly distinct difference in the two bottles when we did a side-by-side this past summer. Even with my bottle being open almost a year longer, it still retained a nice smoky note, and seemed to have a richer, more well rounded profile than the one owned by 'WhiskyJoe'. It came across as a bit of a shock as two how two bottle runs within a year or so of each other could be so different.

@Pudge72 , I agree with the dates and observations. I bought two bottles this year what a appointment. I hope this trend passes! I loved the Lag 16.

"the 'sweet peat' of sherry influenced Islay's such as Lagavulin 16." That's is the combination I search for, not an easy 1 to do well.

@Victor, I've read reviews where you have been able to date bottles. Any advice on dating a 2010 or earlier bottling of Lagavulin 16?

@Benancio Look for the bottle code "L" followed by some digits (and possibly other characters). If it starts L0 it's 2010, L1 should be 2011 and L2 would be 2012. Previous to 2010 it'll be L9 for 2009, L8 for 2008 etc. I think this works down to about 2005 from memory. The number that follows that is the day number in the year e.g. if it's day 167 it should be around June 1st (or whatever it works out too).

@Benancio If you're not sure where to look, it's generally printed on the bottle itself in fairly small font near the base of the bottle somewhere away from the label (e.g. at the back of the bottle or on the side somewhere). Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule but works most times. I suspect all or most of Diageo's bottles have the "L" codes. Others do too, it seems most distilleries probably use the same major whisky bottling plant/s.

I've checked a lot of my unopened bottles and the "L" codes (where they appear on the bottle) indeed match up to be what I expected e.g. my older bottles from 2006 or 2007 were all L5, L6 or L7 etc. You get some distilleries that don't have "L" codes or any other discernible bottling code so have to rely on the label alone and any other provenance details that might be available to narrow it down to an approximate bottling year.

@systemdown , I have US bottlings 750 ml. I dont see the 'L' but I could be blind. Thx for the help. I'll check some old empties I have. I'm a hobby bee keeper and I brewed some mead and put it in empty scotch bottles.

The Laddie Ten!

Having a "hearty" sized dram of both Clynelish 14 yr, and Oban 14 yr...I really enjoy comparing these 2 coastal malts.

1993 Lagavulin Distiller's Edition, bottled 2009. Mmmm, goooood. The PX finish really tunes up the 16 year old. I think the 1995 DE is available now and is probably worth trying for anyone finding the current 16 disappointing.

@FMichael Which do you prefer between the Oban and Clynelish (if you had to pick one) and why?

Breckenridge Colorado Bourbon, a gift from a friend. Roses and heavy char.

@Victor -- I had a taste of that just last weekend. I may buy a bottle sometime in the future.

@Mantisking, competes for the most floral bourbon I have ever tasted, which I love. The char seems like way too much for me, though. I think that they used heavy char to get what wood flavours they could with only two years in the wood.

@Victor -- I picked up elements of mint on the palette, from the high rye content, and slate in the aftertaste along with the other usual bourbon flavors. It's different enough from other bourbons that I'd like a bottle on my shelf at some point.

@Mantisking, mint? (sampling it again, now:) Yes, I can see that. I really didn't notice mint at first, but I can see why you say that. I am not crazy about mint in rye whiskey, but I like it better in bourbon, probably because I don't like mint combined with rye flavours. This Breckenridge bourbon rye content sort of phases in and out for me. It seems at times almost non-existent, then it comes on strong. Interesting to watch.

@Mantisking, one other comment: I will never believe that mint is derivative from rye grain. It has to come from the yeast used. Most ryes have no mint flavours, but LDI rye has it in spades. I very much doubt that LDI is using some mint-tasting rye that almost no one else has. They do have their own yeast, though.

Chuck Cowdery reports that American distillers tell him that 50% of whiskey flavours come from the wood, 25% from the yeast, and 25% from the grain. That sounds right to me, and the reason why distillers are always BS-ing about their water. The wood varies, the yeast is impossible to talk about, and the grain is important, but only still a minority contributor. They brag about their water because it is almost the only thing they control and which is unique to them, except for their yeast, which they don't even have the words to talk about. There is enormous pandemic BS in the whisk(e)y industry.

Master Distiller Lincoln Henderson told my sister recently that he thought that the unique yeast used was THE most important factor giving any whisky its unique character. I am inclined to think that he is right.

Watching the World Series with Balvenie 15.

Oban 14, while enjoying the company of my training group (someone else is drinking Bowmore 12).

Old Rip Van Winkle 10y 107 chased with the Devastator Double Bock Lager. Only in America, gotta love it.

Re-visited the B.N.J. blend last night, I gave it a whopping 87/100 as a MALT mark. Yes you heard me. Am I nuts? Maybe. For less than AU $35 it's right up there with the best BFYB "malts" around (it has a very high malt content so could almost be considered a malt).

Arran 10.. Great value entry level island malt!

@system, ...and I thought that we were beyond apologising for liking blends! :-) Just proves my point that you feel it necessary to defend the choice of liking the stuff.

When oh when will we live in the whisky utopia, in which blends and malts can live side by side without prejudice? Oooohhh, for a more perfect world!

@Victor You mistake me, that wasn't an apology; just shock on my part that I'd give such a high global rating to this. If I had scored it as a blend I'd have given it another several points. The "shock" part comes about due to the price point, not the fact that it's a blend!

But yes generally, I agree that blends and malts should be able to live side-by-side without prejudice. And according to my scoring system, they do indeed as they're treated on equal footing!

@systemdown, well then, BRAVO!,...it is good to see you taking the high ground!

And, I love quite a few whisk(e)ys which are quite inexpensive...so I am never surprised to find no correlation between price and quality.

My bottle of BNJ has not yet been opened. Probably I will share it on American Thanksgiving Day with the relative who got it carried over to me from London. I am looking forward to it.