FAVOURITE JOHNNIE WALKER LABEL

[v1p]

Hi, gang, what's going on?

I wanna ask you what's your favourite JW label and why?

My vote goes to the Blue, but I have to say I haven't tried the Green yet. Otherwise, I think all the labels are quite good and among the best in their price range.

[scotchdrinker]

I voted for green. It is hands down the best for the money. I don't even have to hesitate. Where I am it is $15 more than a bottle of black, 2/3 the price of gold, and almost 1/4 the price of blue.

I am not saying it is all about money because it isn't. Blue is very smooth and nice but it is not worth it's price tag. I think Green is very well rounded and pleasant, and the ratio between value and quality you can't get any better.

[Ganga]

It should be noted that there are at least three different Johnny Blues out there. Standard "run-of-the-mill", King George V, and a cask strength crystal decanter. Myself, I've only ever tried the regular J. Blue. It smooth, easy drinking but I find the flavor profile fairly non-descript. My choice is for the gold but none of them compare to the Campbeltown Loch 25, a superior blend.

[Gov]

[dramtastic]

Haven't tried Gold

Red and Black

Blue zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

Green, a really lovely drop. Butterscotch in a bottle

[The Third Dram]

For me, it's the Gold by a hair's breadth over the Green... Just a tad more crisp, sophisticated and complex, with the contribution of the grains making its mark in lovely fashion as it plays off the malt aspect.

Blue? Really like its plush texture and that combination of demure smoke and ripe fruit. But the price renders it a dubious choice, as we're now into SERIOUS single malt territory.

[Giovinetti]

Have been able to try them all over the years and I would vote for the Blue as the best tasting. I would never buy a bottle at the asking price though.

[Megawatt]

I had a glass of Red a while back and I actually enjoyed it. I certainly didn't gag on it at any rate, as many people seemed to.

[rtp3]

Gold!

I agree about Blue ... very good but not worth the price.

[TheTross]

Blue label. Black is good, and so too is Green, especially for the money, but if I was offered a drink from the range I'd go for Blue any day. Very smooth, very well balanced and very, well... good.

[Reggaeblues]

Green is the most austere and serious dram for SM fans...and great VFM, tho' the last dram I had was much sweeter than the bottle I bought.

Black the most fun!

Gold the most disappointing (despite mega marks from JM!)

Blue i never tried.

Red is ruff! Tho' I had one on a plane from Oz that definitely had a higher than normal dose of Talisker! The only choice on the plane and a real surprise!

But if I had to buy one tomorrow, it'd be Green!

[pmullin]

In the end I opted for the Black, although the Gold and Green are right up there too.

I've participated in a few JW vertical tastings, and normally picked the Gold as my favourite, except for a blind tasting where I chose the Black. It just goes to show how we are subconsciously influenced by price, even when we claim to be "above all that"

IMHO, the Blue has a beautiful nose, but disappoints on the palate. It's not bad or anything, it just doesn't stand up to the opening act.

[lexvo]

Green for me, in my opinion it's a tad better than the Gold. The Black is a nice all-around. Haven't tried the Blue by the way.

[I_SPEY]

I find, that

Red is bad.
Black is beautiful
is
Gold is
Blue is

[LagaDrinker]

Its got to be all the way for me...

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Gold for me with Green a close second but I enjoy the black down the pub from time to time.

Blue is a non runner for me due to price.

[LeoDLion]

The last one I have was two weeks ago. It was a liter bottle of the Gold. Very good.

Blue- I just have the ordinary Blue and was not impressed for the price paid. I haven't had the other versions.

Black- is the staple JW.

Green- had this only once but can not remember how it taste like.

Red- was a staple years ago but haven't had one. Everybody should have a red JW bottle for those guests who insists on putting ice and coke (or sprite or 7-up or other additives) to their whisky.

[Ganga]

Me, I would in general prefer not to have any of the 5, although I don't mind the gold too much. Of course, I plan to try three of the five as part of the blended whisky tasting coming up in April. Maybe see if I can get a spot of Green to gl along with this.

[lincoln imp]

The only one i have not tried is the basic red label.
I agree that the blue label is expensive but you can pick a bottle up on ebay if your lucky for less than £70 ( if you are brave enough )
I believe its unfair to compare the green label to black,gold and blue as it is a vatted malt but as a stand alone drink it is excellent.
Black is a little sharp for me and the gold label is very good but not as good as what JM would have you believe. I have only tried the newer Centenary though.
I have almost finished a bottle of 1990`s blue label. Jim Murray reckons that new offerings are not as good as older ones.
This bottle of Blue is one of the finest drinks i have ever had and is not just a little better than the Gold it is much, much better.
Yes it is expensive but as a stand alone drink it is exceptional.
If i want a really smooth drink then this would be it, hands down.

[upright]

Yep i am the one that voted for RED, because it is drinkable and cheap. At our local pubs there are rarely any single malts so i drink red. The black and all the others are in the same price range as single malts. I know the Johneys are easy to drink and always the same, but i do prefer a single malt even the cheaper ones.

[Wave]

Sorry, I'm too much of a single malt whisky snob to care much about any JW above the Black label of which is only the decent whisky when out on (in this) town.

I visited the Aberfeldy distillery several years ago and it was mentioned during the tour that they had found some very old casks of Aberfeldy and sent them to JW to be used in the Blue label Scotch. I don't think they liked my comment much when I said "what a waste of good whisky!".

Cheers!

[lincoln imp]

Sorry, I'm too much of a single malt whisky snob to care much about any JW above the Black label of which is only the decent whisky when out on (in this) town.

I visited the Aberfeldy distillery several years ago and it was mentioned during the tour that they had found some very old casks of Aberfeldy and sent them to JW to be used in the Blue label Scotch. I don't think they liked my comment much when I said "what a waste of good whisky!".

Cheers!

On the other side of the coin wave i have tried many single malts that cost more than Blue Label and have been rubbish in comparision. The green label is a similar price to cheaper end single malts as its a vatted malt it might be more to your liking.

[whiskynig]

Black for me, best vfm.
You can poke the red where the sun don`t shine.
The blue is deffo overpriced.
Haven`t tried green or gold, although sounds like green could be a good move.

[talisker10]

Well in one of my early posts here I bashed Black pretty well and declared I liked Red better. I am sitting here right now and enjoying my second Black over Ice. Very, very good stuff. I think the secret for me is to drink it over ice...which I usually never do. The ice seems to lessen the impact of the grain whiskey. Real glad I decided to pick up a bottle just to try it one more time.

[pkt77242]

My fav is the Green. nice balance of honey and smoke along with a nice dash of malt. Black would be second followed by Gold (though in fairness I have never had the Blue label).

Sean

[Muskrat Portage]

I'm going to go with Green label as my preferred JW. I've enjoyed the blue however, honestly for the price, I would prefer to pick up a bottle or two of SMs. Blue was a pleasant dram but not something I'd want to revisit on my own tick.

I've had red, black and gold (edit: and a Green which didn't last very long!) in my lair over the years and at present have a Te Bheag (Che veck) for anyone who wants what I consider a decent blend.

I would probably re-invest in all the JW labels, excepting Blue, at some point of my collecting just so I could shelve them in a vertical sequence. It would look "pretty" on a shelf. The point I would have to reach would be owning all the other SMs I ever wanted - which will probably be never unless I win a lottery.

Muskrat Portage

[blacksabb]

.........but if I was offered a drink from the range I'd go for Blue any day. Very smooth, very well balanced and very, well... good.

I noticed that anyone who likes the JW Blue always comments on the "smoothness" primarily but rarely mentions anything else like the nose, palate, finish, complexity etc. Surely for a whisky that's twice as expensive as Glenfiddich 18yrs Ancient Reserve (here in Australia anyway) or more than twice as much as Aberlour A'bunadh or Lagavulin 16yrs I'd expect an exciting inventory list of nose and palate flavours. But mostly, people mention "smoothness".

My goodness, people are very descriptive of all the wonderful aromas and flavours of say Highland Park 12yrs and Glenfiddich 15yrs Solera Reserve which cost 4 and 3 times less, respectively, here in Australia.

IMHO, the Blue has a beautiful nose, but disappoints on the palate. It's not bad or anything, it just doesn't stand up to the opening act.

This is what I mean. A non descript mention of the nose and that's about it. This seems to be the way when it comes to JW Blue.

[scotchdrinker]

I noticed that anyone who likes the JW Blue always comments on the "smoothness" primarily but rarely mentions anything else like the nose, palate, finish, complexity etc. Surely for a whisky that's twice as expensive as Glenfiddich 18yrs Ancient Reserve (here in Australia anyway) or more than twice as much as Aberlour A'bunadh or Lagavulin 16yrs I'd expect an exciting inventory list of nose and palate flavours. But mostly, people mention "smoothness".

My goodness, people are very descriptive of all the wonderful aromas and flavours of say Highland Park 12yrs and Glenfiddich 15yrs Solera Reserve which cost 4 and 3 times less, respectively, here in Australia.


This is what I mean. A non descript mention of the nose and that's about it. This seems to be the way when it comes to JW Blue.

I agree with you, but there are so many other better things to drink than Blue. I have had it many times. It is nice and smooth and it has nice flavor but the smoothness is what gets most people IMO. If you wanna drink a Johnnie stick to Green. And as you said there are many other things you could buy that are just as good if not better than Blue for a lot less money. I am a firm believer of finding a bargain and getting two or three good SMS for the price of one ridiculously priced SMS or Blend for that matter.

[lincoln imp]

I noticed that anyone who likes the JW Blue always comments on the "smoothness" primarily but rarely mentions anything else like the nose, palate, finish, complexity etc. Surely for a whisky that's twice as expensive as Glenfiddich 18yrs Ancient Reserve (here in Australia anyway) or more than twice as much as Aberlour A'bunadh or Lagavulin 16yrs I'd expect an exciting inventory list of nose and palate flavours. But mostly, people mention "smoothness".

My goodness, people are very descriptive of all the wonderful aromas and flavours of say Highland Park 12yrs and Glenfiddich 15yrs Solera Reserve which cost 4 and 3 times less, respectively, here in Australia.


This is what I mean. A non descript mention of the nose and that's about it. This seems to be the way when it comes to JW Blue.

I agree with you, but there are so many other better things to drink than Blue. I have had it many times. It is nice and smooth and it has nice flavor but the smoothness is what gets most people IMO. If you wanna drink a Johnnie stick to Green. And as you said there are many other things you could buy that are just as good if not better than Blue for a lot less money. I am a firm believer of finding a bargain and getting two or three good SMS for the price of one ridiculously priced SMS or Blend for that matter.

I understand exactly what you are saying here but you have to look at the big picture. The perspective you and many others are using is one of a single malt drinker
Blue label is a blend first and foremost.
It is a very good drink because it shows just how far the art of blending with grain and malts has come

Here are my tasting notes for the 90`s bottle

NOSE- Sweet peat, sweet smoke, freshly cut wet grass

PALATE- Christmas cake, vegetal, a little orange zest, currants

Finish - long, very smooth on sweet smoke.

I cannot believe there are no aromas on the nose when Blue label has i believe the likes of Glenury Royal, Talisker and Royal Lochnagar in it.
If only if it were cheaper

[scotchdrinker]

I noticed that anyone who likes the JW Blue always comments on the "smoothness" primarily but rarely mentions anything else like the nose, palate, finish, complexity etc. Surely for a whisky that's twice as expensive as Glenfiddich 18yrs Ancient Reserve (here in Australia anyway) or more than twice as much as Aberlour A'bunadh or Lagavulin 16yrs I'd expect an exciting inventory list of nose and palate flavours. But mostly, people mention "smoothness".

My goodness, people are very descriptive of all the wonderful aromas and flavours of say Highland Park 12yrs and Glenfiddich 15yrs Solera Reserve which cost 4 and 3 times less, respectively, here in Australia.


This is what I mean. A non descript mention of the nose and that's about it. This seems to be the way when it comes to JW Blue.

I agree with you, but there are so many other better things to drink than Blue. I have had it many times. It is nice and smooth and it has nice flavor but the smoothness is what gets most people IMO. If you wanna drink a Johnnie stick to Green. And as you said there are many other things you could buy that are just as good if not better than Blue for a lot less money. I am a firm believer of finding a bargain and getting two or three good SMS for the price of one ridiculously priced SMS or Blend for that matter.

I understand exactly what you are saying here but you have to look at the big picture. The perspective you and many others are using is one of a single malt drinker
Blue label is a blend first and foremost.
It is a very good drink because it shows just how far the art of blending with grain and malts has come

Here are my tasting notes for the 90`s bottle

NOSE- Sweet peat, sweet smoke, freshly cut wet grass

PALATE- Christmas cake, vegetal, a little orange zest, currants

Finish - long, very smooth on sweet smoke.

I cannot believe there are no aromas on the nose when Blue label has i believe the likes of Glenury Royal, Talisker and Royal Lochnagar in it.
If only if it were cheaper

I understand what you are saying too lincoln. I agree there is an art in making a good blend but I don't always think spending that kind of money on a blend is justifiable imo. Also, I just had blue again for the first time in 8 or 9 months and it was not at all what I remembered. It was all peat and no sweet and very little underlying smoke. After this experience I don't think I will be drinking blue again anytime soon.

[lincoln imp]

Yeah there are certainly variations in the taste depending on what year you buy from.
The blue labels i have had and liked are older bottles but the very first time i tried it, it was a 2006/7 offering and to be honest i thought it was over rated and not what i had hoped. Maybe they changed the profile etc.
As for price i agree its expensive and i would not pay £120 - £150 for one either, if i can source a cheap bottle then the temptation is too great for me.

[scotchdrinker]

I had my first Blue back like 4 or 5 years ago and the batch than was delightful. But I would have to agree with you that they are different from year to year. I can understand being tempted but i still don't know if that is the way I would go if I found a cheap one but I understand the temptation. Just hope you do that you don't get a bad batch.

[SoMK]

I answered Green because I like it but at times, I'd rather have each of its components in separate glasses than mixed... I always thought that there was a big lack of homogeneity between the nose, palate and finish in this one. But still, I'd take it over the others.

[I_SPEY]

I noticed that anyone who likes the JW Blue always comments on the "smoothness" primarily but rarely mentions anything else like the nose, palate, finish, complexity etc. Surely for a whisky that's twice as expensive as Glenfiddich 18yrs Ancient Reserve (here in Australia anyway) or more than twice as much as Aberlour A'bunadh or Lagavulin 16yrs I'd expect an exciting inventory list of nose and palate flavours. But mostly, people mention "smoothness".

My goodness, people are very descriptive of all the wonderful aromas and flavours of say Highland Park 12yrs and Glenfiddich 15yrs Solera Reserve which cost 4 and 3 times less, respectively, here in Australia.


This is what I mean. A non descript mention of the nose and that's about it. This seems to be the way when it comes to JW Blue.

I agree with you, but there are so many other better things to drink than Blue. I have had it many times. It is nice and smooth and it has nice flavor but the smoothness is what gets most people IMO. If you wanna drink a Johnnie stick to Green. And as you said there are many other things you could buy that are just as good if not better than Blue for a lot less money. I am a firm believer of finding a bargain and getting two or three good SMS for the price of one ridiculously priced SMS or Blend for that matter.

I understand exactly what you are saying here but you have to look at the big picture. The perspective you and many others are using is one of a single malt drinker
Blue label is a blend first and foremost.
It is a very good drink because it shows just how far the art of blending with grain and malts has come

Here are my tasting notes for the 90`s bottle

NOSE- Sweet peat, sweet smoke, freshly cut wet grass

PALATE- Christmas cake, vegetal, a little orange zest, currants

Finish - long, very smooth on sweet smoke.

I cannot believe there are no aromas on the nose when Blue label has i believe the likes of Glenury Royal, Talisker and Royal Lochnagar in it.
If only if it were cheaper

You're completely right in what you're saying LI, it's a realy great whisky, with what you're saying a sweetish, smokeyish nose, indeed the flavour of grass and a taste of cakes, mmaybe more cookies, some zest and (for me) abricots, with a rather long, sweety finish.
But one must not say that it's not a nice dram, cause it's so expensive!

[d4m0n]

Originally, I answered Gold. However, the more Black I drink, the more I like it. I still think Gold > Black, but no way it's 2 1/2 times better. For the record, I've had bottles of Red, Black, Green, Gold & Blue. For the price, I don't think I'll be buying another bottle of Gold. Black & Green will have a regular place on my bar.