Glenfiddich numbers on bottle
Duke
Reserve mean. It's a black cap version. Printed on the black paper label
under the cap is 77170000 (vertically). Imprinted on the bottle itself are
the following two lines:
L31L60512907
08:44:03
I am particularly interested in what information can be gleaned from these
numbers, i.e. can I tell what year/month it was bottled and what cask it
came from? I assume the first number under the cap is related to the
distillery while the second two numbers are more related to commerce codes
and bottling dates.
A bit about the bottle and myself: I bought it maybe 3 weeks ago in downtown
NYC and there's only about 25%. It's really my first bottle of wisky I
purchased for the peasure of tasting it, and probably also the first
single-malt. I've done a little research and I'm thinking my second bottle
should be an Ardbeg 10 yo. Any comments/opinions in this regard would be
appreciated.
Kjetil
Wether the lot number can tell you anything specific about bottling date
etc, I am not sure. All I know is that in the store I work in, we record lot
numbers on bad bottles. This is in case a whole case or bulk has a fault,
and maybe should be pulled out of the market (though this isn't something
that happens often to a whisky). Chances are therefore you would find at
least another 11 bottles with the same number :)
As for Ardbeg 10, I say go for it! If you haven't tastede it yet, get ready
to enter a totally new dimension in whisky-land. In my (not so humble)
opinion, Glenfiddich and Arbeg are night and day. Ardbeg has all that
Glenfiddich hasn't; taste, punch and virility :)
Enjoy!
-Kjetil
"Duke" <thi...@bogus.com> skrev i melding
news:3eefc4ce$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
Bart
>
>I am wondering what the numbers on my bottle of Glenfiddich 12 yo Special
>Reserve mean. It's a black cap version. Printed on the black paper label
>under the cap is 77170000 (vertically). Imprinted on the bottle itself are
>the following two lines:
>L31L60512907
>08:44:03
>
>I am particularly interested in what information can be gleaned from these
>numbers, i.e. can I tell what year/month it was bottled and what cask it
>came from? I assume the first number under the cap is related to the
>distillery while the second two numbers are more related to commerce codes
>and bottling dates.
>
I've wondered what these numbers mean too, but never seen any source
where they've been collected and explained. Some may relate to
the distillery, or the date of bottling ("08:44:03" certainly looks
like a time of day) but they could also be info about the bottling plant,
the job order in the bottling plant, marks by the bottle maker about
the model and production of the bottle, marks by packagers, shippers,
custom inspectors, importers, distributors, retailers, etc...
The number under the cap is especially interesting, given that it
couldn't have been added after bottling.
I wish there was a resource to look up these kind of numbers and
date a bottle. It would be very handy and would help those "in
the know" when they want to authenticate the contents of a bottle
without opening it: "Yes this is from the period when Glen What's-It
was running their third still"...
But it hasn't happened yet. With big well known whiskies they
make every effort to produce a consistent product. With the
smaller distilleries and the independent bottlers you have rare,
unrepeatable versions. Some change their labels frequently,
like Springbank, or offer many different versions, like Bowmore.
That's almost as good as a dating system because the same label
spans a smaller variety of vattings.
>
>A bit about the bottle and myself: I bought it maybe 3 weeks ago in downtown
>NYC and there's only about 25%. It's really my first bottle of wisky I
>purchased for the peasure of tasting it, and probably also the first
>single-malt. I've done a little research and I'm thinking my second bottle
>should be an Ardbeg 10 yo. Any comments/opinions in this regard would be
>appreciated.
>
Ardbeg is definitely one of the great distilleries, and the 10yo has
lots of admirers, including me. But Ardbeg 10 is about as far away
from Glenfiddich 12 as you can get in the world of scotch malts.
It has strong phenolic flavors of peat and "medicinal" flavors
that are off putting to some. But those "bad" flavors grow on
you, and suddenly don't seem "bad" at all. You can come to crave
them.
You might consider this exchange, about another extreme Islay
whisky, somewhat close in effect to Ardbeg - Laphroaig.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Smelly Nelly (icho...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-26 15:24:57 PST
I just got a bottle of the 10 year after hearing so much about it and
found it to be one of the vilest tasting liquids I've ever tried. Kind
of like the way whiskey or beer tastes the first time you try. I was
wondering if this sense ever goes away and it grows on you. Is one's
first impression of Laphroaig permanent or does it tend to dissipate
and turn into love at some point? I'd really like to know because I'm
wondering what to do with the bottle now.
Is it really an acquired taste? If so, how long does it take? Could
you Laphroaig lovers out there share some stories? I don't relish the
thought of finishing any more one-ouncers without the promise that
I'll develop the 'taste' at some point. Thanks!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
HurL (Hur...@hotmail.com) counseled patience:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: HurL (Hur...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-26 22:58:19 PST
Hiya Smelly!
When I tried my first Laphroaig 10 I had never even tried (or heard)
of an Islay malt. I saw it at a duty-free shop with not much else in
the way of selection and found the price was right when I bought it.
I could not believe that people could actually drink this stuff, much
less enjoy it when I first tried it. What I found however, was that
for the next two days my mind kept returning to it, and I was literally
intrigued - I had to try to recognize some of what I had tasted.
The very next dram I tasted, I loved it. As simple as that. I think
the key (and I recall seeing someone else say something similar) is
to not try to get past certain tastes to find something you're more
accustomed to, but to explore what you're tasting and concentrate on
it. Well that's the best explanation I can offer, first dram I despised
it, then was totally enraptured by the second. Since then I've bought
several replacement bottles of Laphroaig 10, as well as Lagavulin 16,
Lagavulin Distillers Edition, Ardbeg 10, Bowmore Dusk, Bowmore 12.
I like the Laphroaig and the Ardbeg the best but really want to try
Caol Ila (and older Ardbegs and Laphroaigs but can't really afford
them...)
I hope your next tasting session goes similarly to mine...
Cheers!
HurL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And Jock (jock...@hotmail.com) had been there as well, and advised
the gradual approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jock (jock...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-27 02:33:28 PST
LOL. It certainly is an aquired taste. If i speak for myself and i think
most others will agree, i started on *soft* whiskies. By *soft* i mean
easy going. Fruity and not a very large pallette. You could start in the
Lowlands. Glenkinchie or Rosebank. You might want to try a Speyside whisky.
Of Speyside there are also some easy going whiskies like Glenlivet. Aberlour
is another Speyside but a little more spice and autumn fruits. You gradually
work your way towards Islay malts such as Laphroaig. Some people like them
from scratch, but for others it takes a while to get used to the Islay's.
Such an endeavour is very expensive, so i would suggest attending a nosing
and tasting night if you can find one in your area.
One last bit of advice: dont drink in gulps. Twirl the whisky around in its
glass which should be tulip shaped. Let it warm up a bit by your hand. Then
smell it from a six inch distance. Dont shove your nose in the glass or you
will numb your nosebuds by the alcohol. Get used to the small and think of
what it reminds you of. What can you smell from the 6 inch distance? Maybe a
little iodine, some sherry, wood, smoke and peat. Now take just the slightest
of nips. Let it turn gently around your mouth. Swallow slowly and once its
gone down, take in a breath of air. Think of the actuall things you taste.
Is it apples, or citrus fruits, or sherry? Do you taste the oakwood and
burned/smoky peat?
Then put a drop of non bubbly mineral water into the glas. Watch how the
drop floats ariound on top of the whisky. The water is lighter. Swirl it
slightly around in your hand and let it dissolve into the whisky and repeat
the above. What do you taste now? What do you smell now? Is it different?
If so, think what the difference is.
By actually thinking about what you taste and smell it helps you understand
the palatte and helps you appreciate it more. Whenever i buy or get given
a new bottle of scotch malt which i dont know, i sit down and do this ritual
i have just described. I actually write down everything. I have notes of all
my whiskies and have 47 different single malts in my collection. I keep
updating my notes because i tend to taste things a second or third time
around, which i didnt taste the first time.
I hope this helps and i also hope you will not give this wonderfull drink
up. It might be the case that you just dont like Islay malts. There is no
crime in this. Try others and see if you like them. If there are no nosing
and tasting nights in your area, then buy a few miniatures. Allways, allways
use a tulip shaped glass. Not a tumbler with a thick bottom.
Here's tae ye,
Jock
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally sound advice, but Esmond (esm...@nospam.btinternet.com)
objected to a few statements on technical grounds...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Esmond (esm...@nospam.btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-27 05:40:30 PST
"Jock" <jock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ca1...@news.nb.nu...
>
> Then put a drop of non bubbly mineral water into the glas. Watch how the
> drop floats around on top of the whisky. The water is lighter. Swirl it
> slightly around in your hand and let it dissolve into the whisky and repeat
> the above.
Water lighter than whisky? Water dissolving into whisky?
Some good methodology in your post, but some very dodgy science along with
it :)
I'd definitely agree with using a tulip shaped glass.
regards
Esmond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jock (jock...@hotmail.com) was not here to argue the science
and essentially conceded the point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jock (jock...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-29 12:06:08 PST
Ach! Wha' gies a fiddlers fart aboot science? No me anyhoo. Gies a bit oh
swally an a richt guid dram o' yon Islay swally, an ah'm gemme fur
onythin:-)
Jock
P.S. Seriously, i do see the water drops floating on the top of my dram. I
just assumed it was lighter. And when i swirled it around it did go down
into the whisky and changed the flavour and smell. So what term should be
used scientifically for the water dissapearing into the whisky if dissolve
is not the word?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
While Rajmund M. (raj...@yoyocom.com) had sound advice that agrees
with my experience. A friend of mine who doesn't much care for
Scotch whisky liked a good peaty Caol Ila from the first sip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rajmund M. (raj...@yoyocom.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-27 11:49:42 PST
Hi,
Uzytkownik "Smelly Nelly" <icho...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:cf06871.02032...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip!]
>
> Is one's first impression of Laphroaig permanent or does it tend to
> dissipate and turn into love at some point? I'd really like to know
> because I'm wondering what to do with the bottle now.
>
Send it over to me ;-)
Seriously, though. By the time I made my first dram of Laphroaig, I was well
acquainted with a lot of other single malts, and I was on very good terms
with Lagavulin, Ardbeg and Bowmore - other strong flavoured Islays.
Laphroaig, when I eventually got to taste it, was just one more member of
the family. Absolutely fantastic, I must say. As to the acquired taste
thing, I don't really know. I once witnessed a complete newbie, someone
who'd never had a single malt before, light up to the first sip of Laphroaig
10YO. What's interesting, the tasting order that night was Oban 14YO,
Cragganmore 12YO and Laphroaig 10YO. The person in question loved the
Laphroaig, looked down on the other ones. On the other hand, I've managed to
effectively keep some others away from my drinks cabinet by offering them
Laphroaig (with absolutely opposite intentions). You never know. A friend of
mine, who's into single malts in general, has recently developed an
extremely negative reaction to Laphroaig (although he once quite liked it).
See, everyone's sense of taste is different. And it develops. You never know
how you may react to the same Laphroaig in a day, a week or a month's time.
Never say never to any single malt. The beauty of them all is that (as
someone else has already pointed out) you may always find something
different in them, something you overlooked the previous times you tasted
them. However numerous those times may have been. Enjoy!
Cheers,
Rajmund
http://www.whisky.pl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JohannaŠ (cha...@magma.ca) who had previously expressed disappointment
with the Laphroaig Cask Strength, recalled that episode with some
humor...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JohannaŠ (cha...@magma.ca)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-27 13:15:21 PST
And I'll just take a moment to disagree with Jock on the methodology of
starting out with Lowlanders and Speysiders. IMHO it all depends on the
individual's palate and I would never recommend that one start off with
"soft, gentle" malts to acclimatise themselves. This is also a good way
to bore someone if their palate demands a little more excitement.
I was already into strong beers and very heavily spiced,
out-of-the-ordinary foods when I got into single malts so the Islays
didn't turn me off at all. The Bowmore's throat gagging perfume, sure, and
the Laphroaig 10yr cask strength's burnt-tire-rubber dissolved in nail
polish remover, ugh, but other than those two my first adventures in
single malts were with Islays -- Laphroaig, Bowmore and Lagavulin -- and
Talisker, and they hooked me. As a matter of fact, I found the likes of
Oban, Dalwhinnie and Glenkinchie distinctly boring at the time they were
first offered to me as my palate wasn't sophisticated enough to pick out
the nuance and subtleties of these kinder, gentler drams.
And since you asked for stories of Laphroaig, I'll repost Peter Wood's
reminiscings from the MALTS-L list. If Laphroaig was that hard on you,
read this and be thankful that it's not 1959...
"My first dram of Laphroaig (indeed, of any malt) was on Hogmanay 1959,
and I purchased my first bottle of Laphroaig some 10 years later in
Dunedin (home of the late lamented Lammerlaw). Magnificent stuff that
hooked me on malt whisky for life. I cannot forget the sensory impact of
Laphroaig as it was then, so powerful was the "iodine" aroma that I
likened it to a blast of iodoform. No way would I say that about the
dumbed-down modern Laphroaig, and I will argue strongly against anyone
who suggests that the years have damaged my olfactory and gustatory
abilities. Yeh, yeh - I can hear gen-X muttering about another old
fogey who thinks that the 1950-60s were the good ole days. Well they
weren't, those days were mean, deprived and dirty, but by god - the
Laphroaig was good.
...Real Laphroaig was a wolf from the wilds, pull the cork and it would be
at your throat with feral ferocity; open a modern 10y and you'll be lucky
if it gives your toes a rough licking. But there are those who can be
turned on by a tongue on the toes, I'm told." -- Peter Wood
(As an epilogue to this quote, the posting thread took quite the humorous
turn with a Swede then asking Peter if he remembered the first time he saw
a woman's breast and suggesting that the sight was no longer as exciting
now as it was that "first time". Peter retorted by saying that he was
breast fed but doesn't have clear memories of the experience...)
Johanna
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Esmond (esm...@nospam.btinternet.com, remembering Johanna's
previous remarks about Laphroaig, brings us full circle back to
Glenfiddich Special Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Esmond (esm...@nospam.btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Newbie Laphroaig Question
Newsgroups: alt.drinks.scotch-whisky
Date: 2002-03-28 02:31:10 PST
Has old age finally caught up with you, Johanna? You're repeating yourself
(Laphroaig, the way it was... 23 March 2002)
You'll be waxing lyrical about your joyful experiences with Glenfiddich
Special Reserve.
Tell us again about your ambivalence towards Laphroaig
regards
Esmond - in 11 hours I will be in Scotland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And the thread drifted off as they do...
Hope I haven't bored you. Ardbeg *is* a great scotch malt,
and is about as far as you can go in peatiness. But there are
many other directions you can go in flavor... sherry, sweetness,
oaky dryness, gentleness, spiciness, fruitiness, complexity, etc.
If there is a bar in your area that serves these whiskies,
or if they are available as miniatures, this can point you
in the right direction and save you some money.
Whatever you decide to explore next, I'd love to hear what you
thought of it.
Bart
Duke
it!
I agree that it would be great if there was some sort of a database to look
up these numbers - if for nothing else than for curiosity.
After purchasing the Glenfiddich 12 I did a bit of reading and realized I
fell pray to the marketing engine of the most famous single malt scotch
whisky. As stated, my mission was to get an Ardbeg 10 next. Before going
to the store, which is well stocked and has good-to-excellent pricing, I
made a cheat sheet with about 20 highly-regarded single malts. Once there,
I must've spent a good 15 minutes looking over the bottles and consulting my
cheat sheet. The people that saw me must have thought I was an eccentric
drinker ;)
So. I ended up buying 3 bottles: Dalmore 12 ($21.99, Highlands, Northern),
Aberlour 10 ($21.99, Highlands, Speyside) and Ardbeg 10 ($36.99, Islay,
South Shore). I'm thinking of saving the Ardbeg for later - either a
special occasion or for when I have enough experience to properly appreciate
it. So far I only opened the Dalmore and I like it more than the
Glenfiddich (which, at $26.99, was more expensive!). Interestingly enough,
the biggest difference I noticed was in the finish.
What's the first thing I do after I take the first sip from the "catch of
the day?" I get a small round table, place it in a corner and proudly
arrange my "collection" of 4 bottles on it, of course ;)
I am looking for some more feedback, here are a few things that concern me:
Nose/Taste: I got a tulip-shaped glass and started with a dram of Dalmore
tonite. As far as nose, I can only tell two things: apples or many fruits
(fruity), and the fact that it's "sweet" - whatever that means as far as
smell. Taste-wise I cannot identify even one distinct trait. This is all
shocking to me as I used to think of myself (also as pointed out by others)
as having a great sense of smell and taste.
Finish: all I can tell is that the Dalmore has a nicer finish than the
Glenfiddich 12, meaning that it goes down smooth, meaning less stinging
sensation in my throat/back of mouth. What else can I glean from "the
finish?"
Lagavulin "White Horse" - I saw this on a website (maltmadness.com) rated
very high. I searched for Lagavulin White Horse and all I can come up with
is a blend named White Horse that has some Lagavulin in it (ppl say it has
very little). Are there two Lagavulin distilleries, one in Port Ellen and
another in White Horse? If not, what in the world does "Lagavulin White
Horse" refer to? Here's a direct link to the page in question:
http://www.maltmadness.com/track.html#L
The White Horse variety is rated much higher than the Port Ellen one.
Back to numbers: The bottle of Dalmore has absolutely no numbers imprinted
on it. All there is are a couple of numbers on the front/back labels, but
they look more like label-series numbers than anything else. I wanted to
log my bottles, even if I don't know what the numbers mean. Are there a lot
of bottles w/o numbers on them? What's strange is that MaltMadness lists
some numbers for Dalmore 12.. Could be because it's a different market
(namely Europe) or because they no _longer_ print numbers on the bottles.
Bottling Year: How do I tell when a bottle was, um, bottled? Referencing
MaltMadness again, Johannes van den Heuvel lists bottling years for all of
his 369 single malts. Unless he's assuming that it was bottled in the year
it was purchased, he must know something I don't.
I just finished the dram so I will end this post here, hoping I haven't
annoyed anyone too much with my questions. I look forward to your replies.
This is all very interesting to me - just a short month ago I didn't think
much of whiskys in general, having mostly drank "jack'n'cokes" and American
whiskeys. I hope it'll be a long, memorable journey!
Serge Valentin
As I'm part of Johannes' team (the Malt Maniacs), I feel I'm qualified to
answer some of your questions ;-)
Re Lagavulin White Horse: we all know some distilleries' standard bottlings
may vary quite a lot from year to year. The Lagavulin 16yo is one of the
malts that have been varying the most, in our opinion. The "White Horse"
Lagavulin 16yo, as opposed to the "Port Ellen" one, is the version that has
been bottled till 2000 or so. The easiest way to identify it is to check the
golden seal at the top of the little oval white label. If it's the royal
seal, it's the "White Horse Distillers" version; If it's a ship, too bad,
it's the latest "Port Ellen" version. It's good whisky, but it just can't
compare to the older version. So, watch the liqorists' shelves!
As for the bottling years we state on maltmadness.com, either it's written
on the label ;-), which is the case with many independent bottlings, or we
say for instance "< 2000". That's easy, because either we track down the
label's changes (i.e. the lagavulin story above, or the Laphroaig C/S green
or red stripe, or the Ardbeg 10yo with or without a white stripe on the box,
etc.), or we just keep track of the year we purchased our whiskies. We think
a whisky that has been bought in, say 1995, can't have been bottled in 1996
;-). A third solution, some bottling codes (either on a back label, or on
the glass itself) just indicate the year of bottling.
Moreover, the fact that we are a 12 tasters team helps a lot. Le's say I
find a bottle of Glenwhatever in a shop, with a bottling code like ABCD1234.
If Johannes (or any other Maniac) has got a bottle of that Glenwhatever
showing the same bottling code, which he knows he bought in 1997, I can
conclude that the bottle I've seen has been bottled in or before 1997. This
is really useful, especially when considering some heavy hitters like Ardbeg
10yo, Lagavulin 16yo, Springbank 12yo or 21yo etc. Many first batches are
better than the follow-up ones. But again, there a many exceptions...
There's no real scientific thruth in whisky, I think...
I hope this helps,
Good luck
Santé,
Serge
dans l'article 3ef287ad$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com, Duke à
thi...@bogus.com a écrit le 20/06/03 6:03 :
Bart
In article <BB189F75.49BC%vale...@calixo.net>, vale...@calixo.net says...
>
>
>Hi Duke and all,
>As I'm part of Johannes' team (the Malt Maniacs), I feel I'm qualified to
>answer some of your questions ;-)
>
>Re Lagavulin White Horse: we all know some distilleries' standard bottlings
>may vary quite a lot from year to year. The Lagavulin 16yo is one of the
>malts that have been varying the most, in our opinion. The "White Horse"
>Lagavulin 16yo, as opposed to the "Port Ellen" one, is the version that has
>been bottled till 2000 or so. The easiest way to identify it is to check the
>golden seal at the top of the little oval white label. If it's the royal
>seal, it's the "White Horse Distillers" version; If it's a ship, too bad,
>it's the latest "Port Ellen" version. It's good whisky, but it just can't
>compare to the older version. So, watch the liqorists' shelves!
>
Thanks for that info! I too had wondered what "white horse Lagavulin"
meant.
[snip]
>
> This
>is really useful, especially when considering some heavy hitters
>like Ardbeg 10yo, Lagavulin 16yo, Springbank 12yo or 21yo etc. Many
>first batches are better than the follow-up ones. But again, there
>a many exceptions...
>
It's been my experience, too, that early batches are often,though
not always, better than subsequent ones.
I bought 2 bottles of the Longrow 10yo from the first case of
bottles that reached Austin. I thought I had found the perfect
whisky... A few years later I bought a bottle and while still
a nice whisky it didn't impact me in anything like the same way.
I've always wondered if the whisky had changed or if just my
tastes had changed? I'd have to guess that it was the latter,
but someday I'll find out... I still have one of the first two
bottles, to match up against current production some day.
Also,
Does Johannes put any of this bottle identification info on the
website?
[snip]
Bart
Bart
In article <3ef287ad$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>, thi...@bogus.com says...
>
>
>Bart - excellent post, thanks! Kjetil - thanks for your input, I appreciate
>it!
>
>I agree that it would be great if there was some sort of a database to look
>up these numbers - if for nothing else than for curiosity.
>
>After purchasing the Glenfiddich 12 I did a bit of reading and realized I
>fell pray to the marketing engine of the most famous single malt scotch
>whisky. As stated, my mission was to get an Ardbeg 10 next. Before going
>to the store, which is well stocked and has good-to-excellent pricing, I
>made a cheat sheet with about 20 highly-regarded single malts. Once there,
>I must've spent a good 15 minutes looking over the bottles and consulting my
>cheat sheet. The people that saw me must have thought I was an eccentric
>drinker ;)
>
I once made a list of all the (then) closed distilleries and took
it to browse the local stores and see how many I could find. I'm
sure I got the same reaction.
While Glenfiddich may not be the most exciting whisky out there
they've had a hand in creating a lot of Scotch malt enthusiasts
over the years. They pioneered the selling of their whisky as a
single malt outside of Scotland, and if you can believe the whisky
writers it was thought to be a rather daring step in 1963, scotch
malts being thought to be too intense in flavor for any but the Scots.
Of the two most widely available malt whiskys, Glenfiddich and
Glenlivet, I prefer the Glenlivet. So I was suprised at how nice
the Glenfiddich Solera Reserve was when I tasted it. I've read
that some of the older aged Glenfiddichs are quite nice also but
I haven't tasted any of them.
>
>So. I ended up buying 3 bottles: Dalmore 12 ($21.99, Highlands, Northern),
>Aberlour 10 ($21.99, Highlands, Speyside) and Ardbeg 10 ($36.99, Islay,
>South Shore). I'm thinking of saving the Ardbeg for later - either a
>special occasion or for when I have enough experience to properly appreciate
>it. So far I only opened the Dalmore and I like it more than the
>Glenfiddich (which, at $26.99, was more expensive!). Interestingly enough,
>the biggest difference I noticed was in the finish.
>
Dalmore packs a lot of flavor into their 12 yo. It has flavors
similar to flavors I expect in older whiskies. The Aberlour
distillery has long been a favorite of mine, and I like all
the official Aberlour distillery products I've tasted. They almost
always have a touch of sherry, sometimes they have a lot. Recent
10 yo's I've had have had less sherry than in the past, with the
sherry-finished 15 yo taking over the sherry side of things.
(Different bottlings are available in different markets) The
Ardbeg 10 is the "peat monster". A great powerful whisky. Youth
is a friend to heavily peated whiskies, helping them have their
most intense blast of phenolic peat. All of the whiskies you
chose offer a lot of flavor for the price, and each are quite
different. You should get a bit of an armchair tour of the
types of whiskies available with 2 Speysides, a Highland, and
an Islay.
>
>What's the first thing I do after I take the first sip from the "catch of
>the day?" I get a small round table, place it in a corner and proudly
>arrange my "collection" of 4 bottles on it, of course ;)
>
>I am looking for some more feedback, here are a few things that concern me:
>
>Nose/Taste: I got a tulip-shaped glass and started with a dram of Dalmore
>tonite. As far as nose, I can only tell two things: apples or many fruits
>(fruity), and the fact that it's "sweet" - whatever that means as far as
>smell. Taste-wise I cannot identify even one distinct trait. This is all
>shocking to me as I used to think of myself (also as pointed out by others)
>as having a great sense of smell and taste.
>Finish: all I can tell is that the Dalmore has a nicer finish than the
>Glenfiddich 12, meaning that it goes down smooth, meaning less stinging
>sensation in my throat/back of mouth. What else can I glean from "the
>finish?"
>
Some folks swear by one kind of glass or another. I know I've
enjoyed whiskies using all sorts of glasses. For a long time I
concentrated much more on taste than nose. But some while back
Serge pointed me to an interesting article by a fellow who tried
the same whiskies in several types of glasses, and it intrigued me
enough to make a few experiments of my own. I concluded that the
good sized brandy snifters were the best for nosing, especially
with light, delicate or subtle whiskies. For drinking pleasure
I like the tulip shaped glass or any of the "tasting" glasses,
as long as it feels comfortable in my hand.
As far as identifying tastes, that comes as you get used to
sipping high proof spirits and with exposure to different whiskies.
Look for cereal flavors derived from the grain; sweetness; and
peat smoke; sherry flavors which can be winey, nutty, or dry;
and oaky flavors which can be dry like tea or leather, or vanilla
when it's young and fresh. But you don't have to use my categories.
Soon you will be noticing floral notes, citric notes, flavors like
raisins, dates and plums, and other less common traits. Just try
to describe what you actually taste. Tasting differrent whiskies
head to head helps to identify the differences between them.
The finish can be the most interesting part of some whiskies.
After you taste the Ardbeg you'll see how active the finish can be.
[snip]
Looks like Serge's answered the rest...
Bart