Gentlemen, glad to see such spirited response to my thread. Along with Redwiki's inspiration, what prompted this thread was the anticipated return of my wife from London where she occasionally goes on business, and always returns with one or two new (to me) malts; often times purchased at the very enporium that Kennyt mentions in his post. Is that a babe or what? Anyway this trip produced a bottle of Auchentoshan 21. Excellent lowland malt. Extremely smooth, medium body, on the sweet side with hint of orange zest. Perfect, as I have just found out, with some Jarlsberg cheese and dried figs; thanks again Redwiki for the suggestion. I think I'll put on some Satchmo. |
Glad to see this thread still has life. Cpdunn99 is right on the money; it is amazing what a single drop of water (preferably spring water) can do to open up the flavor of a quality malt. More than a drop if you are drinking a cask-strength malt such as Mortlach.
Enjoy! |
Hi Learsfool. I currently have a bottle of Lagavulin 16, and Laphroig 10 in my cabinet. I love the Lagavulin. But I have to be in then mood for it. I thoroughly enjoy the Lagavulin. The Laphroig, well, let me put it this way: that bottle was a wedding present, and I've been married 12 years. I "get" the Islay malts, but it's just not my preference. I much prefer the Highland malts, and to a somewhat lesser extent the Lowland malts. Strictly a personal preference dependent on mood. Kind of like Mahler. Sometimes I think it's music from the Gods. Other times, depending on my mood, I find it trite and self-indulgent. But, I never tire of a good Highland malt. Prokofiev?
Regards. |
It's been a while since I visited my own thread, and I am thrilled to see that it still has legs. A couple of comments about Macallan:
While I agree about the pricing I still find it to be, when all is said and done, THE ONE for me. Sure, I will often reach for something else in my cabinet, but when I don't want to give any thought to the choice, just relax and know that there won't be anything at all to fault in the experience, Macallan 18 is the one. If I only have the 12 on hand, I am much more apt to reach for something else; but not so with the 18. However, I disagree about the 25. I have enjoyed three bottles over the years, and
while it is obviously extremely fine, I find it to be a little TOO fine. I know it may seem odd, but it is a little too round and buttery for my palate. While the 12 can be a little unrefined, the 18 is just right.
For lovers of the Macallan, a couple of other malts that I consider good alternatives are the Royal Lochnagar (very nice smokiness and sherry sweetness), and the 21 yr old Auchentoshan (a personal favorite). The Auchentoshan is a little lighter than the Macallan; but pushes a lot of the same buttons for me.
Enjoy, and keep the comments (and Scotch) flowing! |
Happy New Year Scotch fans! Wanted to share a new single malt Scotch experience. For Christmas, brother-in-law gave me a bottle of 30 yr old Glenfarclas; a very interesting malt. A generous and thoughtful gift, particularly since he is not a Scotch fan himself, but made the effort to find out that I am a fan of the Speyside malts. Being a Speyside malt, the similarities to Macallan are not subtle; with very important differences.
My initial reaction was that I had found the perfect malt for me. It was rich, sophisticated, smooth, with nice sherry overtones, and not as sweet as Macallan (18 yr old) which is about the only criticism that I have of that malt. Sometimes, depending on my mood, I wish the Macallan were just a tad drier. The Glenfarclas also had just a touch more peat (perfect!) than the Macallan and an INCREDIBLY long finish. But, and it is a big but, whereas the Macallan's subtle sweetness is perfectly integrated, the Glenfarclas reveals a long lingering sweetness in the finish only; in a way that leaves nothing but sweetness towards the end of the finish, devoid of it's other character. I find it disappointing. A very good malt to be sure; but I find, once again, that the 18 yr old Macallan is a tough one to beat if that is the style of malt that one likes.
Best to all. |
|
I am reminded of the time I took my six year old son to The Big Apple Circus. We had a wonderful time and the kid was bursting with excitement. Afterwards, as we left the arena, the attendees were confronted by PETA activists yelling at us and shoving disturbing photographs of abused circus animals in our faces. Which do you think will go further toward addressing the, admittedly, important issue of animal abuse? The minor impact that generalizing about, and taking out of context, a particular situation? Or the impact that a tasteless, selfish, and distorted message foisted upon a six year old will have on his long-term view of people's motives and agendas; no matter the means used?
OK, got that off my chest. Been enjoying (a lot) a bottle of Highland Park 18. This one had flown under my radar until very recently. Just the right amount of peat for me, with nice richness and honey. Not bad! |
Lloydelee, I completely agree about the Macallan 18 vs the 25. I have been saying the same thing for some time and gotten frowns from some friends. I have always felt the 18 is THE ONE.
Recently received a gift of Macallan "cask-strength". No indication as to age. I am a fan of cask strength malts, but while this is interesting and I do enjoy it, I find it surprisingly rough and syrupy even with a couple of drops of water (spring, of course) added to relax things. Disappointing overall.
Far more interesting and one that I never would have guessed I would enjoy as much as I do (given my past experience with non-Scottish single malt whiskies, particularly Japan) is the Amrut "Fusion" from (are you ready?) India! I know , I know.... But, a very interesting malt with lots of spice and chocolate notes. Very reasonably priced too. Recommended! |
