Wild Turkey “Rare Breed – Barrel Proof” (56.4%, OB, 2016, 112816A12029M)

I came across this no-batch Rare Breed in a hypermarket whilst on holiday in Poland. It sat there (two of them to be precise) on a sad little shelf made of metal wire, between some marked down totally anonymous cheap wines lit by cold light. So I just had to take these two golden orphans with me. These were also marked down considerably, so essentially a no brainer. I reviewed a Rare Breed before, one with batch number WT-03RB, and that was certainly not bad, since it scored 82 points, and I may have been a bit on the conservative side. I ended that review with the remark that Wild Turkey is axing the batch numbering and making it younger an lighter in the process. I read somewhere that Rare Breed was a blend of 12yo, 10yo and 8yo Whiskies, but more recent batches are said to be 12yo, 8yo and 6yo Whiskies, by word of WT themselves. Well, and finally here it is, one of those no-batch younger and lighter Rare Breeds.

WT-03RB was pretty good, and was almost there, (but not quite), so I’m hoping the next step will be forward in stead of backward. I might be getting ahead of myself assuming it probably got worse is also not very professional, now isn’t it? So I opened this bottle a while back, in a time when I actually was very much busy with Whisky from Scotland, so Bourbons were shifted towards the back burner, big time. After finishing a recent review, I parked myself on the couch, opened the doors of my stash, and my eye fell towards the bottom shelf, bar one, where the Bourbons are. Its just one of the bottom shelves, not “the bottom shelf” quality wise. I started with Evan Williams, decent, easy and reduced too much, so the next step was obviously to go ahead and move up with this no-batch, younger and lighter Rare Breed. Well this certainly hits the spot. I pressed repeat two times more before finishing off with Booker’s. And guess what, sometimes I like this Rare Breed better than Booker’s and almost all of the time I prefer it to the Evan Williams, which is most definitely not a dud in it’s own right. Where the previous Rare Breed had some soap, this one has none. This batch of Booker’s also has this very floral, soapy, floral perfume notes to it. It seems to me this “batchless” might be better than the WT-03RB. Lets find out for sure if its lighter and d-lighter or not.

Color: Light orange gold. (Much lighter than the WT-03RB batch)

Nose: Big on aroma, creamy and chewy. Cookie dough. Fresh spicy wood and gravy. Yes, this has a meaty note. Vanilla and sappy oak. It’s like you can discern several different ingredients in this. Toasted oak, grains and cereals and even the yeast. Next comes a more fruity note. Little forest strawberries and hints of red lemonade. This passes quickly and moves towards a more drying note. Warm desert wind, with lots of wood and showing the youngest Whiskey blended in. The more you smell it, the sharper and drier the wood note gets. Finally it smells like a wood shop altogether. Sawdust and all, turning into paper and cardboard over time. Also the yeasty bit stays around as well. The big creamy aroma, from the start, subsides quite a bit. Give it even more time, and after some sips, (the aroma I smell is also released from my mouth), the wood note itself starts to evolve into a more fragrant, perfumy note. A hint of honey even. Nice.

Taste: Hot, quite dry and woody. Not so creamy as expected, but the odd toffee and liquid caramel notes are there. Yes some vanilla and sweet corn notes as well. (Wild Turkey use 75% Corn in their mashbill, the rest is 13% rye and 12% malted barley). Sometimes a bit thin and definitely wood driven, sometimes I even pick up a licorice note in the woody bit. Still a good dose of corn and a little bit of rye. Only slightly bitter. Dry leaves. Wood seasoned by high temperatures. Nice thin layer of sweetness laughed away by the wood, but extra points to the sweetness for trying. If I remember correctly, somewhat simpler than the WT-03RB batch I tried earlier, much earlier. Hey almost 4 years ago, so give me a break! The sweetness keeps battling with the wood, and this makes it fun to drink. It just doesn’t know how to give up. Nope, even with 12yo Whiskey blended in, this still lacks a bit of complexity it should have had, but still, this is much better than many other Bourbon’s around. This is why this bottle is almost empty already. The finish is medium at best, hot and fun, but the aroma’s don’t have a lot of staying power.

This is a whisky made with a high corn mashbill, however it is also a wood driven Whiskey. It has quite a stiff backbone and enough alcohol to carry it well. Sometimes a bit simple, but nevertheless quite enjoyable.

Points: 84

P.S. rummaging around my stash I found a sample of the WT-03RB batch I reviewed 4 years ago! This older batch is definitely much darker in color, much softer in taste, but quite similar in complexity. The 2016 no-batch, easily overpowers it. Sharper and bolder, much more fresh sappy oak and more of the yeast notes as well. Seems much higher in alcohol too. WT-03RB even seems a bit less balanced with quite a lot of toasted and burned notes to it. Even though WT-03RB is older and darker, it isn’t better. I really thought I might be upping the original score of 82, but alas, after careful tasting, H2H, 82 is still the right score for that batch. Go figure.

Port Charlotte 8yo 2007/2018 “CC:01” (57.8%, OB, Heavily Peated, Cognac Casks, 18/006, 2018)

Those of you who have checked the title meticulously will have a question. How can this be 8yo (so stated on the bottle), when this is distilled in 2007 (so stated on the bottle) and bottled in 2018 (so stated on the bottle)? Has it been transferred into glass after 8 years or as often happens, the Whisky in the bottle is (and is allowed to be) older than the stated age. We may never know. This expression is abbreviated as CC:01, meaning that this is the first (01) release of Whisky, fully matured in Cognac Casks (CC). I’m sure there will be more of these abbreviations reviewed on these pages in the foreseeable future.

Finally, this is one of those bottles which I almost missed reviewing before it is gone. One of those bottles I reach for easily, despite the high ABV. One of those bottles I believe to have reviewed earlier already, even being surprised I can’t find the review on these pages. So from the last drops in the bottle, here it goes.

Color: Gold

Nose: Bonfire, spicy wood, creamy but not really vanilla like. Big. Paper and smoke. More bonfire. Beautiful, perfumy smoke notes. Wonderful smelling Malt this is. Hints of medium sweet Rhum Agricole. (J.M style). Next leafy, autumn garden. Extremely well balanced and very appetizing. All just fits together so well. Some breaths of fresh air, bonfire smoke next, with a luxury feel to it. And this nice lazy hidden sweeter and fruitier note (lime juice). Lazy, because it lets me know its there, but allows me to enjoy the other notes first. Soft yet spicy wood. In no way harsh. Creamy, leafy with mocha. It keeps developing. Black tea. Dry, old, dusty oak. Hints of raspberry ice-cream, the vanilla notes emerge after all just before the first notes of pencil shavings. Good one, I love it. No it’s not finished yet. Notes of well aged Calvados now. Will it ever end? Let me just say, nothing really Cognac-y or winey or peaty. Capiche?

Taste: Spicy and sweet on entry. Skip that last remark though, maybe there is some Cognac to it after all. Quite hot going down. Some indistinct fruity notes come next, on top of dry oaky notes. Both are on top of each other, so a bit less well integrated, or maybe the cement between the bricks is missing. Sweetish yellow fruits, partly dried, combined with a nice ashy note and maybe some old licorice. Notes of bitter oak towards the finish and a bit of waxiness emerges. See Lagavulin, this is younger than your 10yo and no milky, too young tasting Whisky here. Nice restrained smoke. Earthy or maybe grounded is a better word. Slightly less balanced than the nose, and also less beautiful, but still very good nevertheless. Fairly long finish, but after that it all went down, leaving just a medium amount for the aftertaste.

Well, what can I say, me likey. It didn’t take me all that long to buy me another one of these. Very good Port Charlotte. I Hope Bruichladdich will do more Cognac Casks in the future (and release them, obviously).

Points: 88

Lagavulin 10yo (43%, OB, Travel Exclusive, L9102CM004, 2019)

Lagavulin, does it ever disappoint? well, for me, not yet anyway. Although the 8yo was stretching it a bit if I’m honest. It did manage to get the mean score down a bit. If only it was as good as the recent Talisker 8yo! After the 8yo, we already planned to have the 9yo Game of Thrones edition, but it went back into our stock in favour of this 10yo. Recently a 11yo Offerman Edition was released. Still have to look into this one though. No idea yet, who this Nick Offerman is at the moment. I vaguely knew about the existence of the 10yo, but stumbled upon it on a ferry en route to the Whisky Show in London, so we bought a few on the way back, at a very fair price I might add. however, after the 8yo and a few drams of this 10yo, I’m already wondering what all these bottlings have to add to the greatness (and the price) of the 16yo. Not sure what Diageo is doing here, diverting attention away from the 16yo? Winning new souls? Enlarge the portfolio, like the one of its white labelled neighbour?

Color: Dark Gold, slightly orange.

Nose: Soft peat and earthy. Even softer smoke. Quite closed and restrained, or is it so much reduced that the aroma’s have to fight to make it out of my glass? Maybe this is a Whisky more suitable for my new and highly amplifying 1920’s blenders glass? Not for this review. Still soft, yet sweeter and fruitier notes emerge. Soft and elegant. Lagavulin’ s answer to Laphroaig’s “Lore”? Way in the back, there is a lovely dried fish note, making it more salty and coastal, thus more interesting. Soft and hugely toned down Sherry notes from the 16yo come to the fore. After a while it is still a softly playing tune on the radio, but the balance seems there. Its definitely more mature than the raw, milky and unfinished 8yo. Smells sweet, images of refined sugar pop into my mind. Some sort of Caribbean Lagavulin, with ghosts of many yellow fruits trying to contact me telling me they are here. Still I can’t “see” them.

Taste: Sweet and malty, and way closer to the 8yo than the nose. This, dear reader, is a bad thing. Ashes and toasted oak. Spicier than I expected. Black and white powder and licorice. Sweet licorice, with more smoke than peat. Liquid slow burning small bonfire, with just the tiniest bit of bitterness to give it some backbone it so badly needs. With every sip it’s relative youth comes to the fore, just like the 8yo, but less of it. Weak sweet sherry, milk and buttermilk (without the acidity), maybe I should call it sweetened buttermilk. Again this milky unfinished note I get from the 8yo and young modern Tomatin’s. I don’t like that. To be honest this is a fairly simple Whisky, hardly any development, probably killed by the reduction. Please can someone explain to me why one would get this (or the 8yo) and pass on the wonderful 16yo, which probably costs less to boot? Come on Lagavulin you can do so much better than this!

Soft and sweet with wood spice and smoke (and milky acidity). That’s it in a nutshell. Why is this bottled at 43%? Its doing this Lagavulin harm. Is this another of those bottles aimed at people to bring them into the peaty fold, by reducing the peat so much it hurts? Why not 48% for instance? Even the 8yo was 48%. I’ll tell you why, because the novice doesn’t like that much alcohol. Get a root beer instead, dear God. Why so much effort to do this, to ruin it. We already have the (rather weak) 8yo, the 9yo Game of Thrones (which I haven’t tried yet), and now this (rather weak) 10yo? Enough already. I can only hope the 11yo “Offerman” is better. Lagavulin is going mainstream, like Laphroaig and in the process ruining it for the people with taste. Just like Laphroaig with it’s 10yo cask strength, Lagavulin makes for us the 12yo cask strength and all hail to the 16yo which is still with us! The 8yo and the 10yo I can do without. These two I really don’t need, and I don’t understand the need for it too. It offers nothing more, they add nothing to Lagavulin. I haven’t tried the 9yo GoT bottling yet, nor the 11yo Offerman, but I will already lower my expectations a bit before starting that review. I hope it ends here, this is already quite damaging the wonderful feeling I get from Lagavulin. Sure it is a decent score, if you are into mediocrity, but Lagavulin was never about mediocrity, it always was, secretly, the best of the class, one you could depend on deliver. Has Lagavulin been bought by Beam-Suntory recently?

Points: 84

If I were Greek, I would have thrashed my glass after this (being a big fan of Lagavulin).

Crabbie 8yo (46%, OB, 2018, L7290)

Nope, this is not a new Whisky hitting the markets, well, actually it is, but the brand is old. The John Crabbie mentioned on the label was born way back in 1806. Together with a bloke called William Cree, John started a drinks trading business. When Cree passed away, John renamed the business after himself, and steered the business more towards Scottish Whisky. He created his own blends, rented time at well known distilleries to distil his own spirits and even bought a grain distillery called Haddington. In 1885, John, together with Andrew Usher and William Sanderson (look them up), founded the North British Distilling Company. North British is a grain distillery near Edinburgh and is still in operation today. The distillery is now owned by Diageo and Edrington through a joint venture. Back to John. John, himself, passed away in 1897 and left the business to his two sons and by the 1970’s the Crabbie brand disappeared…until now! Resurrected by the new owners, Halewood. In 2018 this Crabbie 8yo and a Crabbie 12yo were released as well as a 30yo later. More has been released or is on it’s way, like a 25yo and a 40yo as well as a NAS bottling called Yardhead. Halewood is also busy with building their own distillery, Bonnington, near Leith, but since that is not finished yet, they already started Malt and Grain Whisky-production last year in their Chain Pier distillery in Granton (Edinburgh). Making it the first Malt Whisky production in Edinburgh since 1925 (Glen Sciennes, was the last one closed), remember that one?

Color: Gold

Nose: Malty and actually smells a bit like a work in progress to me. Under aged and funky. Unbalanced. Something is not quite right. It smells lactic and acidic. Paper and cardboard are here as well. Soft wood notes. But also, dusty and slightly Sherried. Smallest hint of smoke, and again greenish (after the Glen Garioch Virgin Oak, which also had (entirely different), green notes). Not bad, but not without its flaws. Sure there are some very appealing elements to it, but the milky and sour combination puts me off a bit. Luckily this bad side does tone down considerably when it gets some time to breathe. Meaty notes emerge next. Still, young overall and after a while this Whisky still manages to vent off some more off notes. A sulphury compound being one of them, if I’m not mistaken.

Taste: Very malty, light, fruity and again, this time a more fruity acidity. (rotting) Banana’s. Also an earwax-like bitterness masked quickly by a sweeter note. Light, simple. The unbalance is here on the palate as well. Seems Sherried. Artificial citric fruitiness. Some sweet malt. Some toffee, especially in the finish. Almonds emerge in the aftertaste. Slightly warming. Chalk. Funky and weird. The bitter note dominates the finish with this milky baby vomit note hovering above it. I already used the words “strange” and “funky” now didn’t I. Unbalanced.

Where the Glen Garioch Virgin Oak was a bottle I emptied rather quickly because it was so nice, this Crabbie’s is just the opposite. This is not my type of dram. It’s not because of it’s youth, because I have tried some really young Laddies I like, as well as several young Campbeltown Malts which are really good. The basis of this one is all right, but has some faults on top of it. These off notes to me are a bit off-putting. This Crabbie’s is a strange one. I’m focussing on the good bits, finish it quickly and then forget about this one in a hurry.

By the way, when I bought this bottle in London, it was whispered in my ear that Crabbie’s 8yo is in fact a Macallan, and the 12yo expression a Highland Park, both owned by Edrington, which also owns, as we already know, half of the North British distillery founded by John Crabbie et. al.

Points: 76

Laphroaig ‘Brodir’ (48%, OB, for Travel Retail, L8239, 2018)

We can now conclude our Laphroaig Travel Retail Trilogy with a rather recent batch of the Laphroaig ‘Brodir’. ‘Brodir’ looks more like a Laphroaig we know so well with its pristine white label and black lettering, but this time with a big fat bordeaux colored band on it. ‘Brodir’, not unlike other bottlings, starts its life in ex-Bourbon barrels and is finished in Port pipes made of European oak. Beforehand this seemed to me to be the one of the Travel retail Trilogy to be the safest bet buying a whole bottle of. The ‘Cairdeas’ from 2013 (also a Port finish), as well as previous batches of Brodir, gained a lot of fans.

If I’m not mistaken, the first ‘Brodir’ that saw the light of day was the one bottled for Viking Line in 2012. The next try was the 2013 ‘Cairdeas’ already mentioned, although ‘Brodir’ was not on the label since ‘Cairdeas’ already was. In 2014 ‘Brodir’ Batch 001 surfaced, Batch 002 in 2015 and since 2016, no batchnumbers were given. Odd, since, batchnumbers are pretty popular with the 10yo ‘Cask Strength’ versions, but there probably is a reason for this.

Color: Orange gold with a reddish hue.

Nose: Some peat but way more smoky than it is peaty. Right from the start a bit harsh. Winey and industrial. Very smoky indeed yet also a breath of sharp and fresh sea air. Ever been under water too long? Remember the moment you sniffed up some water right before coming up a bit too late. Well, this smells like that to me. Like breathing in water. Metallic. Hints of licorice. Italian laurel licorice. Warm log fire. Smoked mackerel. A harbour with some motor oil floating on top. The Port seems well integrated and used with taste. After it had some time to breathe, this develops a more perfumy edge to it.

I can’t help but feel that even though the Port did it’s work, this shares some common ground with the 10yo ‘Cask Strength’.

Taste: Starts with smoke and almonds. Ash tray. A bit raw. Meaty maybe. Burnt paper, ashes, bitter licorice. Hints of vanilla way back. Coal and steam. Plastic and rubber. Not bad. Although a NAS bottling, in no way does it come across as too young. It has quite some complexity, and seems to be a nice version of Laphroaig. A sort of Industrial Revolution version of Laphroaig. The licorice turns sweet a bit. The sweetness, which doesn’t reach ‘Lore’ levels, adheres to the smoke and to a lesser intent, the peat. It doesn’t taste like Port sweetness. But then again, this doesn’t feel very “Porty” to me.

Personally ‘Lore’ is an all-right yet a-typical Laphroaig. The ‘1815 Legacy Edition’ turned out to be quite a surprise, after all the on-line negativity. Since I liked ‘An Cuan Mor’, I expected a weakened or ruined version of the ‘An Cuan More’, but au contriare. So very nice it is, and worth the reduced price it is sold for today. The original price, which most markets still have, is a bit too much compared to the competition. Finally here we have this ‘Brodir’. A Laphroaig that feels like having some proper Laphroaig under the bonnet, just differs on the outside. ‘Brodir’ is nothing to scoff about even though the first batches are said to be better. There are many aspects I like, so I’ll remember this one fondly. In the end I guess I may have liked the ‘The 1815 Legacy Edition’ best, but this one is hot on it’s heels, and sometimes I feel it might be even better. If you try these Whiskies in the order published, all goes well, however for me the ‘1815’ is lost when tasted after ‘Brodir’ making the ‘Brodir’ the bigger Whisky. I’m not even trying the ‘Lore’ after ‘Brodir’.

Points: 86

Laphroaig ‘The 1815 Legacy Edition’ (48%, OB, for Travel Retail, L7345VB1, 2017)

Here is number two in Laphroaig’s travel retail trilogy. We started the trilogy with the smooth and soft ‘Lore’ made for manbuns and suits, where the classical feel of Laphroaig is of weather worn fishermen, storms and salt. Today we are going to have a look at a different, but similar looking travel retail bottling, ‘The 1815 Legacy Edition’. Both bottles have dark green labels on green glass, and in my opinion look very smart and sets them apart from the white labels we know. Just like the ‘Lore’, the copywriting on the packaging is something to forget rather quickly, and luckily Whisky can help you do that.

This ‘1815’ (for short), is made up with first-fill bourbon barrels and new European oak hogsheads which sounds similar to the make-up of the ‘An Cuan Mor’ and Ardbeg’s ‘Corryvreckan’. The ‘An Cuan Mor’ has spent around 8 years in first-fill Maker’s Mark barrels, after which they were finished for a further two years in virgin European oak casks. Laphroaig have more bottlings using virgin oak, like the ‘Select’ and ‘QA Cask’ (Quercus Alba), but both bottlings use American Virgin oak, giving off more vanillin than European oak, which is more about tannins. I’m guessing they changed the name of the ‘An Cuan Mor’, as well as the packaging, because (some of the) timings for the ‘1815’ are different. Nevertheless, knowing I rather liked the ‘An Cuan Mor’, I guess this should be a very nice Laphroaig as well, contrary to popular belief.

Color: Dark Orange Gold

Nose: Soft, fruity and ashy. Definitely starts with the same Christmas spices as the Lore. After a while these spices just disappear, or are overpowered by other aroma’s. Soot. Creosote. Quite a big nose this Laphroaig. Dirty. Love it. Along for the ride comes this fruity fresh citrus note and it retains a bit of its sweetness. All in good balance. This one shows some earthier notes as well. Maybe more restrained, but also somewhat more promising. A hint of peat I know from the 10yo ‘Cask Strength’ bottlings. After some breathing more of the restrained beauty emerges. I’m liking where this is going. Only just now more woody notes come along. Yes fresh, virgin oak, but different from the omnipresent virgin American oak. After a while a metallic breath of fresh air whiffs by. After drinking this, the nose takes it up a notch. Getting better and better over time. Fresh oak and a lot of depth. In this sooty, tarry nose lies a nice and white floral heart (and some yellow fruits as well). You have to inhale as if your life depends on it, but it is there ready for you to behold.

Taste: Sweet yellow fruits in sweet yoghurt and Greek style yoghurt. Even more liquorice than ‘Lore’ had, and the whole starts out much harsher, but also more honest and more powerful, although that term should be used lightly here. Dirty is a better word, ashtray. On entry this reminds me a bit of some Rhum Agricoles. Ginger notes combined with some nice sooty notes. Sharp, dry fresh oak. Yes lots of wood influence, especially the acidic oak could be a wee bit less. Definitely some virgin oak, but less vanilla and butter-like so the more tannic European oak influence makes sense. Compared to this, ‘Lore’ was sweeter, easier, more polished and seemingly more refined. Definitely a lot of wood now and the ashes and soot remain. Spicy and bitter. Warming going down. It still doesn’t resemble a proper Laphroaig like the 10yo ‘Cask Strength’ version, but closer to it than the ‘Lore’. Nope, the difference is much greater than the difference in ABV alone. Way longer finish than the ‘Lore’, with wood, and a slight bitterness. Tannins and even a soapy element. Tarry and bitter. Warm asphalt. Dirty for sure. Maybe a bit less balanced than usual, but no problem in this. Still don’t discard this Laphroaig’s sweetness, it might be big and dirty but it also has plenty of sweetness underneath. Winey a bit… no they didn’t, didn’t they? PX, in this? (They did with Ardbeg ‘An Oa’).

As said above, this one doesn’t get a lot of love from other people, but considering this is a NAS and the virgin oak doesn’t overpower the whole, I’m actually pretty amazed with what was achieved here. I found it a Laphroaig and even a tasty one. I’m not against the usage of virgin oak, as long as it is done sparsely and done with taste. It works for me in this and it works for me in Ardbeg’s ‘Corryvreckan’. Even though this is more raw and unrefined, less balanced even, I still would prefer this over the Lore. However, if you prefer Lore over this, I can definitely understand that as well. Having said all that I actually prefer ‘Corryvreckan’ over the ‘1815’. Its just better and has a higher ABV (which I like) to boot and costs less. Easy.

Points: 86

‘The 1815’ H2H ‘An Cuan Mòr’ The ‘1815’ is slightly darker in color. Nosing them, I would say that they seem very similar, with some slight differences. The ‘An Cuan Mòr’ seems more mature and slightly better balanced, with a nice, warming bonfire note. ‘1815’ seems somewhat simpler, yet also more rough (in a good way as described above). ‘1815’ is waxier and has these wonderful whiffs of Christmas spice. Given more time they both come closer to each other. The differences in taste are a bit similar to the differences in the nose, where the ‘1815’ seems a bit rougher and more oaky, shorter in barrels, longer in the European oak? Both are essentially the same Whisky and the differences described may be accountable to batch variation, and not because they are blended differently. Both are good, and almost like twins, but the beauty lies in the details. And trying them both together, there is one that starts to shine a bit more, let it breathe a bit and the ‘An Cuan Mòr’ is the (slightly) better one, especially when tasting it, it is better balanced, more complex, just better. Still, I prefer both over the Lore, which for a Laphroaig is too easy, too soft, maybe even a bit weak. But that’s just my opinion. For me it also lacks complexity considering older cask(s) were used. It just doesn’t impress, but bad it is not.

Review #750.

Laphroaig ‘Lore’ (48%, OB, for Travel Retail, L8297, 2018)

When surfing, reading the odd review or two, I find that NAS and/or travel retail Laphroaigs don’t get much love and sure enough, are even hated by many. For instance, Lore and the 1815 Legacy Edition are the replacements for previous travel retail bottlings like the PX cask, QA cask and An Cuan Mòr, to name but a few. So, why this dislike? First of all, do they taste bad, or are they badly made, do they taste super young, unfinished?

Laphroaig has been taken over by Beam-Suntory, and since then, a plethora of NAS travel retail offerings have emerged. Big Bad company trying to make a lot of money with supposedly immature Whisky over your back, coaxing you out of your hard earned cash. Maybe that is the reason these bottling do not recieve a lot of love? Or is it the travel retail channel, making them a little bit harder to get, although I see all of these bottling in lots of shops. Also, travel retail also has some sort of stigma of offering mediocre, highly reduced (often to 40% ABV), litre bottles. And last but certainly not least; NAS, which often means lots of three year old Whisky mixed in, or so we, the consumer, like to believe. By now we don’t trust anyone, or any company, anymore. They are just in it for the money and not for the art of making Whisky, made for us the discerning drinker, and lover of malts.

In Laphroaig’s case, the bottles which are to be replaced, seem far from sold out as well, even when marked down. So shops are stocked up with many Laphroaig NAS bottlings. Being a big fan of the older/other bottlings, the 10yo (Green Stripe) Cask Strength comes to mind, or even the 10yo at export strength (43% ABV), the 15yo, I somehow lost interest with all these new NAS bottlings.

However, time has come for me to have a go at some of them. The An Cuan Mòr I have reviewed earlier, and I liked it, where lots of fellow drinkers didn’t. I will be the first to admit that it isn’t a daily drinker type of Whisky, but still the quality is there (for me), and I did like it. So which one of the “new” Laphroaigs to pick then? And what if they aren’t any good, as many people are so passionately claiming? In comes plan B. Bottleshares! Always a good way of getting to try expensive bottles without losing a lifetime’s worth of savings, or for spreading the risk in case of imminent anticipated disappointment. Is the risk low, share it/buy it with one friend. This time however the risk seemed pretty high, (I so believe everything I read), so time for a bottle share with three friends, which was a first for me. I still have to give the parties involved (parts of) their share, due to low stock of empty sample bottles. Through this four-way bottle share, I got the “Lore” and “The 1815 Legacy Edition”, and I bought a whole bottle of Brodir, which seemed a somewhat safer bet.

Lets start with Lore. On Tweet-ter John Campbell mentioned that Lore contains: “7 to 21 year old liquids with 3 more ages in between” so if it was stated on the label it would have been officially a 7yo Whisky, so no 3yo NAS people, even though older components were used to make this expression, so let’s call it by its name and not its unstated age, I give you: Lore…

Color: Dark Gold

Nose: Very aromatic thick smell. Sweet, syrupy, but not sugary, no, more like condensed sweet smoke. Perfumed smoke, Christmassy smoke. Cigarette smoke infused car interior. Licorice and an amazing freshness hovering over it as well. Quite promising right from the start. Very fragrant and spicy. Smells wonderful and different from most other Laphroaigs I know (mostly those bottled a while back). Paper announces the turn towards the softer side of Laphroaig, since it becomes very medium and soft, still meaty and smoky though. Velvety, almost, and still a bit sweet smelling. Some fruity notes and when smelling/drinking these, whiffs of black fruits are sometimes noticeable. Very soft peat, mostly from the well aged kind. So the older casks are definitely recognizable. No wood, not even soft wooden notes, no, its fresh and thick (almost impossible together), and very fruity. Sweet and accessible. To me this doesn’t smell like a travel retail exclusive but more as a holiday season exclusive. Softer than usual. Warming fire place and hardly any peat. This one is about aromatic smoke. Well done thus far, now let’s taste it, since something’s gotta be wrong with this, it just has to.

Taste: Black and white powder, liquorice and quite sweet. Bassetts Liquorice Allsorts. Sweet, also on the lips. Even though this has 7yo Laphroaig in it, it still isn’t heavy on the peat. Reminds me a bit of An Cuan Mòr, even though this is not its direct successor. Again more a smoky one. More of the softer stuff comes forth. The whole of the Whisky is sweet, dominated by it in fact and the lack of upfront peat makes it also very drinkable. Not sure about the sweetness in the long run though. Makes it a bit flatter, smoother. I hate that word when describing a Whisky. Smoky yes, peat, no, not so much. Starts out quite sweet and going through the body of the Whisky, the drier smoky notes take over. Salty lips, which is a nice effect after the initial sweetness. Somewhat simple in its approach. The finish is somewhere between short, shortish, cloying sweetness and of medium strength/length at best. The aftertaste; only some sweet liquorice again (and some smoke). Quickly gone. Quite a simple Whisky actually and definitely from Laphroaigs love-it-or-hate-it series. Nope for this one, Laphroaigh came down from it’s big rock in a storm, to club level on Ibiza. Miami Vive attire. Don’t I like it then? It’s nice, its different, still made up of good casks. A bit to sweet, for my taste, and therefore a bit too flat, and definitely too short. Laphroaig is always a bit sweet, but in the old days, most of it was well hidden by all those sea and peat aroma’s for which we love Laphroaig. The taste is ok, but it is the nose that presents all those awesome aroma’s. The original price is too high for what it is, but I paid half price for it (even before the bottle share), and then it is one you shouldn’t pass by, or maybe you should, because maybe one of the others mentioned above, might be better…

Knowing now what kind of Whisky this is and how it tastes, the copywriting on the packaging is a load of BS. “The richest of the Rich”, or, “…is our richest expression ever”? WTF? (I just stopped believing everything I read). Some Laphroaigs definitely are, but this Lore, nope, sorry, metro man territory, yes, manbun, yes, tailored suit, yes, this is for the travelling business class metro man, with coiffured beard. Doesn’t even come close to how a proper Laphroaig can be and should be. Darling can you pass the green stripe please?

Points: 84