Back in 2023, matching up batches #006 and #007 was quite fun. Both Laphroaigs were stunning and scored the same. Lots of similarities and yet some noticeable differences as well, especially in the taste. As mentioned in the review of #007, I started looking (again) at cask strength Laphroaig 10yo’s at a time batches #001 through #005 were long sold out and fetching hefty prices at auctions, and now even more so. From batches #006 upwards, there was not really a problem finding those at reasonable prices, so I did just that.

I still haven’t got several of the earlier batches, so like star wars starting with episode 4, I’m going to use batch #006 as my starting point and work my way up and maybe I’ll get a chance to review the earlier ones as well some time in the future. If possible, I’ll try to compare one batch to another batch, (it worked for me to do pairings), but my stash is somewhat limited and the number of batches is rapidly growing, so it is impossible to compare each batch to each other batch. Although some people did do verticals of tastings of many different batches. For me: box ticked for comparing #007 to #006. Both batches were reviewed from bottles I had on my lectern. Now let’s do the next two. First off this batch #008 from my own bottle and the next review will be batch #009 from a sample provided by Nico, which comes in handy, so I can skip this one at home and open another batch. That would be batch #011 actually, since Auke already provided me with a sample of batch #010. 2023 is already a few years back so I won’t be comparing batches #008 and/or #009 with the two earlier reviewed batches, however I will compare batch #009 to #008. Lets start with batch #008.

Color: Light copper gold.

Nose: I just poured it and it seems the whole room now smells of peat, the longer it stands the “thicker” the air. In my mind this glass stands on my lectern emitting aroma’s like a chimney emitting smoke, you just can’t see it, but you can most definitely smell it. Powerful, earthy peat, with lots of smoke. Meaty, fishy, tarry rope kind of stuff. Medicinal iodine laced peat, with some artificial lemon like aroma (ever did the dishes?) and even a hint of grandma’s old dried out floral bar of soap, both just a hint, so don’t be alarmed. Nice vegetal aroma. Very well balanced batch this one.  Fresh and at the same time very earthy and brooding. Liquorice and sweet liquorice wood sticks. Still also this pleasant smelling soapy edge. Soap on the nose is often good, if the floral bit fits the rest, not so much in the taste. Remember Bowmore’s FWP? (If not and you are proficient with google you might want to look up Serge’s review of Flowermore 38yo on Whiskyfun.com). More smoke and lost of ashes. Smells like a house that once was on fire and was abandoned for a few months. Glowing embers and bonfire notes, but also a sugary sweetness in the smell as well as some accidentally crushed beetle. Childhood memory, though terrible, it comes in handy when reviewing Whiskies. Still smoke is the main ingredient of this nose especially if you allow a glass like this peated candy to stand around for a while. The nose is excellent.

Taste: Initially sweet, with lots of liquorice, even sweeter than the nose promised, like keeping Liquorice Allsorts in your mouth for a long time. This one is like peated candy. Liquid peat and liquid ashes and therefore turns dry quite quickly. The sweetness takes a backseat to even let this slight bitter note some room. This smoky peat has a slightly bitter edge to it, which is slightly different from woody bitterness. Crushed beetle again. I never dit taste the beetle mishap described above, but how it smelled is recognizable in the taste as well. Both the taste and the smell of this batch are about peat, smoke, ashes and liquorice. The sweetness, though present, is overpowered by the aforementioned foursome. Its actually hard to find something more to it than this. Yes what you get is very good again, but I’m definitely not sure of this batch #008 is on par with both #006 and #007, without comparing it to one of those.

I do can recommend having an archive. I have bought a lot of standard 60ml sample bottles, with special inert lids, to keep things like they were, and occasionally it is very useful to be able to go back for some reason or another. Not to dent a particular sample from my archive too much, I poured a little bit of batch #006, not to really compare the nose of the taste, but to compare the scores. I do can say that #006 has more of a classic Laphroaig nose, more old style so to speak, it even has clay, that batch #008 clearly doesn’t have. Batch #008 has some kind of “fire” theme going on. Batch #006, since it is not overpowered, that much seems more elegant, both nose and taste. Not sure if elegance is something that springs to mind when reviewing a 10yo Laphroaig bottled at cask strength. Final remark: batch #008 is raw and in your face and therefore also simpler and also slightly less balanced. I preferred batch #006, but I’m also quite happy that there is quite some difference between the two.

Points: 90