Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Talisker Storm

Average score from 8 reviews and 36 ratings 82

Talisker Storm

Product details

  • Brand: Talisker
  • Bottler: Distillery Bottling
  • ABV: 45.8%

Shop for this

What next?

  • Add to cabinet
  • Add to wish list
@britwhiskyfan
Talisker Storm

Storm definitely has the character and profile of a talisker expression peat, smoke and the usual salty sweet complexity. What I find odd is oily bitterness that hits mid way in the sip and again in the after taste although in the end the oak really pushes through in the finnish. I think I would like this dram more if I hadn't tasted talisker before (and it wasn't a favorite) I think it just a little young and under developed to be great.

How would you compare it to the 10?

Sub standard Talisker 10 packaged and priced as a more premium / intense malt

@Victor

The reviewed sample of Talisker Storm is compliments of @Jonathan, and is from a bottle open for 2 months

Nose: lots of Talisker sea brine, and some of the characteristic Talisker distillery black pepper, wine around the edges, and malt in the background. There is fairly light peat and smoke. Medium intensity. Nice enough

Taste: goes quickly to very strong black pepper on the palate,...and salt. The other nose features remain but are overshadowed. This bottle has magnified the pepper since the bottle was opened. Peat and smoke are a little stronger on the palate than in the nose

Finish: strong pepper and salt last medium long, then fade to a soft brine on sweet background

Balance: Storm isn't very balanced, but has all the classic Talisker distillery flavours, with good intensity on the palate

I don't see any improvement by Storm over a good batch of the Talisker 10 year old. I see Talisker Storm as very drinkable, but not a bottle to lust after

Water added mellowed the nose, and enlivened the malt flavours on the palate. I prefer Talisker Storm with a little water added, and would rate it 3 points higher that way

@Benancio, well, Storm has no age statement, so its raison d'etre is probably to use blending to meet demand in the absence of large quantities of aged stock. I was very impressed, though, by how much MORE peppery, typically Talisker peppery, this bottle of Storm was after being open for two months.

@hunggar, I am guessing that in Diageo's mind the 'necessary' is that Talisker Storm has No Age Statement. And they won't miss a step by already having Storm at a slightly higher price point now than is the 10. They will be completely ready (if and) when the Talisker 10 yo is no longer available. You have to give it to Diageo, they think ahead.

@BlueNote, as to stocking up, I think that the word is now out on age statements, WORLDWIDE. Age statement whiskies are disappearing right and left, Scottish, Japanese, and American. When you've HEARD or READ that it has happened to Talisker 10, it will alredy be too late to put in your supply. They do these things quietly, you know. NO ONE in the industry, without being forced or on the spot, will make the announcement in advance that they are eliminating a popular product and replacing it with a lesser one at a higher price.

On the continuum of 8 or 10 bottles of Talisker 10 from which I've sampled I would rate for quality Talisker Storm as being right about in the middle...which is to say I've had Talisker 10s which I've liked better than Storm and others which I liked less. My experience of Talisker 10 is that it is a very variable whisky, perhaps the most variable malt whisky which I have ever had. So, overall, Storm winds up being like a middling-not-the-best-batch Talisker 10 to me,...minus the age statement, and for more money.

I find Talisker DE to be quite variable too, depending on the release. Some releases integrate the sherry well, while others do not.

Even my second bottle of Talisker 57 degrees North tastes a good bit different from my very beloved first bottle of 57 N.

With Talisker, if there is any way I can, I want to taste from the batch offered for sale before I buy.

@hunggar

We’ve got the “Storm” here, a bottling that seems to be positioning itself as an alternative to Talisker 10. Talisker’s own rejuvenated and refill barrels have been used to accentuate the brand’s house style. The end result should be a very Talisker-y Talisker, which sounds promising.

Nose: Very Talisker indeed, with sweet peat, minerals, limestone, lilac, banana, nuts, butter, lemon lozenges, and brine.

Palate: Perhaps a bit thicker and oilier than the 10. Honey, minerals, gentle peat, caramelized onion, brine, butter, and lilac.

Finish: Medium in length and as coastal as they come. Lots of brine, peat, almonds, minerals, oysters, charcoal, honey, earth, and ash, and heather.

Thoughts: You can pick apart the differences, but this is a similar enough profile to the 10 year old. Admittedly it’s much saltier, slightly peatier, and has a different texture. But it also has a flatter finish and less depth of flavour. I consider the 10 to be a benchmark for Talisker, one that often outshines its fancier, more expensive siblings. But at least with the DE’s or Port Ruighe you get a finish, with the 57 North you get abv, and with aged releases there’s, well… age. This doesn’t seem to bring anything new to the table. I get that with these particular casks they’re highlighting the house style, but I thought the 10 year old was doing a good job of that already.

Also, reusing and rejuvenating their own casks and releasing a NAS whisky with a heftier price tag than the 10 seems rather dubious to me. Is using younger stock and needing fewer new barrels more expensive than the cost of aging something for 10 years? Here in Taiwan the Storm is about $20 more expensive than the 10, which is far too much.

Then again maybe I’m getting too critical here. It’s still a drinkable and enjoyable whisky. And yes, it’s very Talisker-y. I’d buy this again if the price were reasonable.

The 10 yr as you said is the benchmark. I have tried the Storm and the Dark Storm and found them to be lacking esp when you consider that they are $20 more here. They will not be getting anymore of my cash for these bottles.

Talked to my local MLCC rep he stated that Diageo has been doing alot of restructuring of its workforce and put projects on hold as their market share decreases. They have stated that they will not discontinue the 10 yr but really that might just be the party line.

It will be a sad day for me if the 10yr is discontinued.

I tried this at a tasting and was thoroughly unimpressed. Just not much there, as a I recall.

It's a like when a band covers a good song in the same style as the original but no better. Totally dispensible.

As to price, let us not fall into the trap of thinking that costs drive prices. Rather, prices are just the most that the seller thinks he can get for it. Diageo thinks they can get more for this than they can for the 10. It might be more expensive to make; it's probably less. But either way, that's irrelevant.

If they do discontinue the 10, I'm sure there will be some serious bunkering going on.

@AndyC

If you really like your whiskies salty, which I quite like, then this will be right up your alley. It even out-brines Old Pulteney 12, which I also love for it's salty/barley mix.

This is a salty/peaty mix, and verges on too much salt sometimes. There is as much peat, maybe more, than in the 10 year old, but not as much of a smokiness. I'd say that the 10 year is the better whisky, but oddly I had gone off the 10 year a bit before having this, and this has somehow really re-ignited my love for all things Talisker. Really enjoyed the distillers edition that I had recently as well, although it does feel odd for the Talisker smoke and brine to be reduced to the quiet background feature that it has there. I think that the 57' North sounds where it's at if I'm to be honest though. Really looking forward to that one!

I'm always looking for some good brine. Thanks for calling that out and making the comparison to OP 12.

I had one of the Talisker Storms at a local tasting a couple months ago, but I forget already which one. This one? Dark Storm? I usually keep the little flyers; I should check. I don't recall being too impressed but I think I approached it with poor expectations.

I'll say too that I like the review format here, or maybe the lack thereof. I get quite sick of Nose (list), Palate (list), Finish (list). Even in Serge's reviews on whiskyfun, I often just skip to his comments at the end. Your review here feels like nothing but the comments at the end—the good part.

Rock on.

Thanks, @OlJas. It's definitely not one of the best Taliskers, but it has got something going for it. The brine / peat balance isn't quite right though. It would be better with more peat and less brine, or possibly just more peat to balance the brine, which overpowers a little. And a good bit more of that Talisker smokiness would be good too! Then it would be cracking. But, as it stands, it is worth trying again if you're a fan of salinity.

@sengjc

I tried this new(ish) release at the Whisky Live 2013 Melbourne and was quite impressed. Decided to get a bottle the day after.

Glass: Glencairn

Just poured: Nose: Taking a whiff freshly poured from a fresh bottle and I detect rubber, medicine cabinet, the sea, not overpowering but like the tide, it ebbs and flows. Left in the glass and the rubber recedes but we start seeing garlic notes (?) developing. Take a deeper breath and you can jus make out a bit of the malty sweetness.

Palate: Salty with just a hint of honeycomb crunch. Not very intense as you would expect from a Talisker but it is gentle. Rather closed, really with just some spearmint and the slightest citrus at the back palate. Glides down rather well and just mildly spicy.

Finish: Rather short and not very lively. A mineral like austerity. I can just make out the following notes in the fade: barley sweetness, coconuts, a hint of smoke and brine. Warming.

Adding some water to see if it helps improves the dram. Not really, the nose dulls but there is noticeable improvement on the palate: more malty sweetness to the fore a little soy-sauce, miso soup...(I am waiting for dinner to be ready, LOL).

Not what I recall from Whisky Live 2013 but it is ok. I reckon this would be a very good food-friendly dram or if you just want a casual everyday drink without feeling overwhelmed.

Just purchased the Storm yesterday...

Found the nose to be a bit more malty (also hints of banana nut bread) than the 10 yr...Def more peppery/spicey on the palate than the 10 yr - however it's the brine on the finish that reminds me that this is indeed part of the Talisker family...

IMHO - the Storm is a really good single malt...With that said - I still prefer the 10 yr, and when you consider the price (paid roughly $12 for the Storm) - it's hard for me to pass up the 10 yr for a no age statement single malt such as the Storm.

edit for clarification...Paid roughly $12 more for the Storm than the 10 yr.

@MaltActivist

Talisker created quite a bit of buzz around this particular No Age Statement bottling with many speculating that this would be the complete Skye malt. But it was not to be...

The typical salty Talisker nose is at first comforting as it brings with it the traditional Skye notes like lemon zest, melted butter with herbs drizzled on a salmon and cream pie soaked in brine. I quite liked the nose.

The palate, on the other hand, is a touch disappointing for me. While the delivery is quite intensely spicy with a lemon honey twang it is the presence of something mysteriously bitter which throws me off towards the end. Quite unsettling if you ask me.

The oily finish, unfortunately, retains the nagging bitterness which I can only hope later editions address.

I just tried it as well, and I found it underwhelming. It was relatively intense,but not a lot of depth or subtlety. Still good though, I am a sucker for Talisker… but if I wanted something simply big and intense, there are other bottles I would rather have…

@tabarakRazvi, thank you for the review. Bitterness on the finish of the Talisker Storm does not seem like something that is likely to go away. If you keep the bottle on hand for a period of time, please do comment on any changes to the Talisker Storm that develop as a result of exposure to the air.

@markjedi1

Is Talisker jumping on the NAS bandwagon, as we have recently also seen from Macallan? Well, it is nothing new of course. To name but a few: Auchentoshan Three Wood, Dalmore King Alexander III, Glenmorangie Signet, Isle of Jura Prophecy, Springbank CV, Ardbeg Uigedail. The criticism that this is all about young whisky of lesser quality does not hold water. The press blurb tells us that Talisker wants to focus on the distillery character and therefore used rejuvenated casks with matured Talisker and young Talisker with refill casks to create this Storm. It is priced just above the regular 10 Year Old, which I am putting right next to it for comparison.

It is immediately clear on the nose that this is a completely different profile. Not at all sweet. Rather salty and mildly sour. Loads of peat and white pepper. There is some sweet malt hidden in the background, as well as some vanilla, but up front I get nothing but maritime elements. Anchovies in the lead, followed by stockfish (you know, the dried fish to chew on?) and oysters. Feels a little young, though. After a while, the vanilla gets louder.

Quite soft on the palate. Very smoky and suddently becoming quite sweet. Peat and ginger. Walnuts! Once that fades the fruit kicks in. Pears, apples and mango, but also hints of melon. Midpalate a big saltiness appears. Very nice balance.

It becomes fruitier and sweeter still on the lingering finish, with a return of the typical pepper and brine on the death bed.

In all honesty, I prefer the 10 Year Old more, but it is close. This one is pretty complex, even. Surprising how it evolves from very salty to very sweet. This is a good dram, which reminded me of Caol Ila on the nose, but showed its true nature on the palate and in the finish.

PS. Talisker announced its newest port finished Talisker Port Ruighe today, also without an age statement, available from May 2013.

@galg

Nose: A lovely melange of young fruity notes with quite some peat and sprinkle of pepper. Sweet malty notes and a bit of mint and seaside air to add another dimension. The nose does feel young but well rounded and balanced.

Palate: A lot of smoke on the palate here , with big chunks of earthy peat. Much more than the 10 year old. After the initial peat and smoke impact more fruity tones are revealed with pear and berries and a salty edge. Another swirl in the mouth reveals a certain nuttiness that follows the fresh ground ‘signature’ pepper. We’re dealing with a Talisker, after all…

Finish : Quite long, nutty and peaty, soot and hint of fruit.

Very impressive stuff. It’s very different than the 10, while maintaining some similarities (mainly the earthy peat and pepper), but on a very different scale. It’s different, and that’s good since it’s a very good dram. NAS or no, spectacular work on behalf of Diageo (yes, it’s me Gal. I’ve said a good word about Diageo, i know. slap me). It’s going to be a very solid seller this one in shops. It shot up to the top of my “to get” list for the near future. All i can say: do yourself a favour and try this one. I am pretty sure you would think it’s worth your time and your coin. Don’t expect it to be the best dram of your life, but it’s good. damn good.

It seems that more and more distilleries are cutting the agestatements (12,18) and/or practical info (sherrycask, doublewood) and just give their whisky a name. Is this because of the way it sounds or just a way to ask more money for younger whiskies?

@PeatyZealot : Yes I think it's a way to ask more money for younger whiskies. Laphroaig is doing it with the Cairdeas, Ardbeg is doing the same thing with the Blasda, both of them cost much more than their 10yo regular entry. I really wanna try this scotch because I'm a big fan of the 57 North and the 10yo. But if this 6yo scotch is pricier than the 10yo, heck I'll stick to the 10yo.

Popular Talisker whiskies