|
It's a good whisky, with a nice silky mouthfeel. Does not come close to being worth the price of admission though.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:46 |
|
spankmeister posted:It's a good whisky, with a nice silky mouthfeel. Does not come close to being worth the price of admission though. Yeah, exactly that.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
I think the Green is actually better then the Blue, and it can be had for <$60 if you catch it at the right time. The casino offers Black and Red as their comp drinks, and they both are awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
2DCAT posted:The BiB up here in NoVa/DC is about $2-4 more expensive. Also, I actually like the older design more =( I actually do too. I'm definitely picking up a bottle or two if I ever see it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
For my monthly what should I buy post, my recent whiskys: Aberlour abundah Oban 14 Yamazaki 12 Nikka coffy grain Doublewood The only one I wouldn't buy again is the nikka. Any opinions on the Glenlivet Nadurra 16? Budget $100 or less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Are you interested in peaty Islays? Good options at your price point would be Laphroaig Quarter Cask, Laphroaig 10 cask strength (if you can find it), and Ardbeg Corryvreckan. I also like Campbeltown scotches, look for Springbank 10/15 and Longrow Peated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I don't think I've actually had whisky that can be described as peaty. If I were to try one, I'd prefer it be on the cheaper side of my budget just in case, you know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Yeah, absolutely. Ardbeg 10 and Laphroaig 10 are my favorite entry level Islays, and I often prefer them to some of the more aged ones because at younger ages the peat is more pronounced. I prefer the Ardbeg, but most people swear by Laphroaig.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Booyah- posted:Yeah, absolutely. Ardbeg 10 and Laphroaig 10 are my favorite entry level Islays, and I often prefer them to some of the more aged ones because at younger ages the peat is more pronounced. I prefer the Ardbeg, but most people swear by Laphroaig. I'm the same way, but both are really good imo. Here is a good graphic thing: http://www.malts.com/index.php/en_us/Choosing-Whisky/A-World-of-Flavour/The-Single-Malt-Whisky-Flavour-Map
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Peaty doesn't necessarily mean smokey, correct? I'm not a massive fan of super smokey whisky. The oban was pretty smokey for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
It doesn't, but they typically go hand in hand because the malted barley is literally smoked by burning peat to dry it out. If you didn't like the smokey aspect of Oban, the above mentioned Islays might be a little overwhelming. The first time I had Laphroaig I felt like I was sitting at a campfire. I'd see if you can try a pour first before buying, and any bar with a few decent scotches is likely to have the Ardbeg or Laphroaig.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Booyah- posted:It doesn't, but they typically go hand in hand because the malted barley is literally smoked by burning peat to dry it out. If you didn't like the smokey aspect of Oban, the above mentioned Islays might be a little overwhelming. The first time I had Laphroaig I felt like I was sitting at a campfire. I'd see if you can try a pour first before buying, and any bar with a few decent scotches is likely to have the Ardbeg or Laphroaig. Thanks for the info! I might hold off until I can try a pour. Any suggestions that are more in line with my previous bottles? Edit: it's not that I didn't like it, I enjoyed it! I don't know if I would have enjoyed it if was any more smokey. Google Butt fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
I'd like to hear some opinions on Booker's and Baker's, has anyone tried both?l
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I'd like to hear some opinions on Booker's and Baker's, has anyone tried both?l I like the bookers more than bakers. With that said, I only ever bookers at places that have a poor whiskey selection, so I guess in the big scheme of things, I think its fairly average for the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Has anyone tried both Hakashu 12 and the Glenlivet Nadurra 16? Opinions? My local bevmo has both on hand at similar prices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I really like the Glenlivet Nadurra - it's definitely different from what you've had, but should be familiar at the same time
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I'd like to hear some opinions on Booker's and Baker's, has anyone tried both?l Baker's is my favorite bourbon. It's got a nice gingerbread dessert thing going on, and the proof and age seems just right. It's also often ignored for its barrel proof brother.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Is $29.99 (post tax around $38 or so) a good price for aberlour 12? It seemed like it was fair bit cheaper than I remembered seeing it at other places, so if it's a particularly good price, I might pick up more the next time I'm at costco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
Google Butt posted:For my monthly what should I buy post, my recent whiskys: If you don't own a bottle of Red Breast 12 you might want to try that at some point. Just a smooth irish whisky, less complex than most of what you have above but very nice and should go for <$50 USD per bottle.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:Is $29.99 (post tax around $38 or so) a good price for aberlour 12? It seemed like it was fair bit cheaper than I remembered seeing it at other places, so if it's a particularly good price, I might pick up more the next time I'm at costco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I'd like to hear some opinions on Booker's and Baker's, has anyone tried both?l I bought Bookers once and it tasted like dust, according to goons my experience was uncharacteristic. Bakers is fantastic, my favorite bourbon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Has anyone tried both Hakashu 12 and the Glenlivet Nadurra 16? Opinions? My local bevmo has both on hand at similar prices. Nadurra 16, IMHO Hits pretty hard, high alcohol content. i liked it with a splash of water. It took a few drams, but I grew to really like it and was sad when the bottle was done. Would buy again. Bright, complex nose and flavour that conveys quality. I'm not the best with whisky adjectives, so am interested in your impressions if you get it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
2DCAT posted:I like the bookers more than bakers. With that said, I only ever bookers at places that have a poor whiskey selection, so I guess in the big scheme of things, I think its fairly average for the price. I like Baker's more than Booker's, but I like Four Roses Single Barrel more than either. If I were to rank the Beam Small Batch bourbons, it would be: Baker's | | Basil Hayden's <-> Booker's (very different , but they occupy the same rung for me) | | | Knob Creek Baker's is the only one that I'd really consider buying for myself. Basil Hayden's is something I'd have on the rocks at a backyard party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments, Baker's it is!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
I can't find Highland Park 18 anywhere in Seattle (but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough). Asked a guy at BevMo if they'd stock it again and he told me it's discontinued. Which is nonsense... right??
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
rekamso posted:I can't find Highland Park 18 anywhere in Seattle (but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough). I've definitely seen it around here so yeah. Nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
rekamso posted:Asked a guy at BevMo if they'd stock it again and he told me it's discontinued. Which is nonsense... right?? Speaking as a former retail-grocery guy, there are different flavors of discontinued. D/C from the manufacturer means they don't make it anymore. D/C from inventory means that it's been marked as unavailable from ordering in the store's/chain's systems, and probably that any remaining stock has been marked down to clear. There's only so much shelf space, and even a big shop like a BevMo or a Total Wine can't carry everything; I'd guess that BevMo has just decided not to carry that item anymore to make room for other items that will bring them more revenue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
I was catching up on the beer thread, and someone posted a picture of a whiskey barrel that some beer had been aged in, supposedly the whiskey was 32 years old. It was a Heaven Hill barrel. After looking them up to see what I recognized them from (Rittenhouse), I didn't see anything on their product list that I knew of having a 32 year version. Does anyone else know what would have been in a Heaven Hill barrel from '78 to 2010? Someone said Elijah Craig 23, which would make sense if they had transposed the 1 and 0.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
rekamso posted:I can't find Highland Park 18 anywhere in Seattle (but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough). Nonsense, it's never the 18 year-old whiskies that gets discontinued, but the middle-aged 14-17 year-old expressions. Maybe he was thinking Glendronach 15 'Revival' which is now an absurd $110 at BevMo and discontinued until 2017.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I was catching up on the beer thread, and someone posted a picture of a whiskey barrel that some beer had been aged in, supposedly the whiskey was 32 years old. It was a Heaven Hill barrel. After looking them up to see what I recognized them from (Rittenhouse), I didn't see anything on their product list that I knew of having a 32 year version. The way an age statement works is that the age on the label is the age of the youngest spirit in the bottle. This means that if you have say a 90% 10% mix of 15yo and 20yo whisk(e)y then the age on the label will be 15yo. Even if the mix is 99% 20yo and 1% 15yo it still has to be 15yo on the label. Whisky producers are known to blend in older stocks of whisky with younger ones if needed to create a consistent product. Now it's quite possible that they never bottled the 32 year old stuff from the barrel and that they only used it to round out younger blends. 32 years is a lot of time for a bourbon and most of the time the wood influence becomes too strong so it might not even be a good whiskey on its own. This is just speculation ofc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Has anyone tried both Hakashu 12 and the Glenlivet Nadurra 16? Opinions? My local bevmo has both on hand at similar prices. The Nadurra 16 is also being discontinued, and replaced with NAS versions. So, get a bottle while you can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Devoz posted:The Nadurra 16 is also being discontinued, and replaced with NAS versions. So, get a bottle while you can. I snagged a bottle yesterday. What does NAS mean?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:I snagged a bottle yesterday. What does NAS mean? No Age Statement Whisky producers have been moving to this for the past couple of years because it allows them to put whisk(e)y's as young as 3 years in their bottlings without the label telling you. If there is an age statement, that means that it's the minimum age of the whisky used in creating that particular bottling. (They can use older whisky than what the label states, which is often done to round out a bottling to get a consistent product, but they may never use younger.) They're basically doing this to keep up with increased demand and to lower costs. It has very little if any benefit to the consumer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
spankmeister posted:No Age Statement It also allows them to use new aging methods that take less time yet have good results. This is good IMO for the industry as agitation / sonic type aging or higher surface/volume aging (barrels filled with more wood staves / wood chips) can give a very nice tasting age in less time but will be frowned upon if you market a 2 yr whisky even if it could taste indistinguishable from a 12.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
I'm not that big on it, none of these techniques work quite as well as old fashioned cask aging. E: also putting in staves and or chips is banned in scotch iirc. Compass box had to pull the old oak cross because of it. e2: it was spice tree, not oak cross. spankmeister fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Devoz posted:The Nadurra 16 is also being discontinued, and replaced with NAS versions. So, get a bottle while you can. Oh for pete's sake guess I'm going to get a bottle tomorrow. ..
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:Oh for pete's sake guess I'm going to get a bottle tomorrow. .. Agreed. I'm not a huge fan of their 12 year, but I should at least pick it up to try. spankmeister posted:I'm not that big on it, none of these techniques work quite as well as old fashioned cask aging. It is banned for scotch. As far as smaller cask size goes I'm all for it. Journeymans distillery does some pretty tasty stuff even though they claim to seldomly age for more than a year or so. I will say that some of their whisky could use a bit more refining or aging go to the specific burn some of them carry. That being said, Kissing Cousins and Silver Cross are fantastic and you are wrong if you disagree! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:31
|
|
spankmeister posted:I'm not that big on it, none of these techniques work quite as well as old fashioned cask aging. I don't know why you'd say they don't work as well unless you've had a systematic study of ones aged normally vs artificially from the same batch stock of spirits. There hasn't been much of this out there. I've read on this before and most people tend to just think the older method works better without any empirical evidence. It's banned for certain varieties because that's part of the standard that defines what the variety is. I would be willing to bet you could end up producing a 'Scotch-style whisky' that could rival the original aging process given the right conditions. It's an active field of study right now for a lot of people and some of the stuff they are doing is pretty interesting. All of it is just maximizing the exposure to the wood either by surface area (addition of chips / staves) or by mechanical intervention (ultrasonic, vacuum / temp cycling).
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
That Works posted:I don't know why you'd say they don't work as well unless you've had a systematic study of ones aged normally vs artificially from the same batch stock of spirits. There hasn't been much of this out there. I've read on this before and most people tend to just think the older method works better without any empirical evidence. I have a sonicprep from polyscience and have used it for quite a bit. I initially bought it because I wanted to char my own oak and then throw it in a bunch of white dog to see what would happen. At either rate, it has been incredibly successful for me in 'aging' whiskey. I still have a bunch of samples at various time intervals that I could probably upload and share (from a pale yellow color giving minor oak flavor to a deep brown giving a "this has been aged for so long that this is completely ruined!' flavor. The pictures along should give you an indication of how hell the agitation process works. The vials I have are from a year ago as well, so the pics would also debunk some dumb claims that it's merely an emulsion and that it'll 'break' after about 20 or so minutes. From my testing, and as described by polyscience, I didn't experience any heat gains, which was something that i feared based on some previous testing I did (I'm an EE and tried building my own sonication device, but each device I built had some minor flaws that would cause subtle heating). Cleveland uses a different approach, and from an engineering perspective, is a lot easier to build than the sonication route (unless of course i can figure out a better way of handling the heat dissipation). In a nutshell, they're basically using vacuum pressure to force the liquid through very, very, very tiny spaces. The sonication processes, if done properly, works. Those who claim otherwise are likely 1) Going in with a negative impression and are biased 2) Don't like the mash recipe, the water used, etc. and are blaming their hated on the aging process 2DCAT fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:The way an age statement works is that the age on the label is the age of the youngest spirit in the bottle. This means that if you have say a 90% 10% mix of 15yo and 20yo whisk(e)y then the age on the label will be 15yo. Even if the mix is 99% 20yo and 1% 15yo it still has to be 15yo on the label. Does scotch get over-aged as well, or is it something about the new charred oak bourbon has to use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:24
|
|