Most overrated malt?

[MacDeffe]

Well the OB is pretty bland, to try the good stuff go for the IB's

Macdeffe

[dramtastic]

Yep, it depends what you get.
The current 14yo is not bad, but some of the IBs and older ones are excellent.

I have a 31yo SMWS waiting in the wings and I fully expect it to be top notch. It had better meet expectations

Currently have an excellent Montogerie's Clynelish 32YO open and have also had a OMC bottling that was a pretty good drop.

Then again that's just my experience.

[bredman]

I'm also surprised the number of times members have said Ardbeg in this thread. I could understand some of the Single Casks that have skyrocketed in price, and yes, bottles such as the Supernova at $130-140 probably are priced higher than they can deliver for such young whisky, but the Corry? Uigeadail? Both are rightly recognized as stellar whiskies that could beat a number of older, more expensive bottles H2H. I guess this is simply another example of "to each his own".

I'm also surprised Ardbeg311. Seems that many people have confused 'overrated' with 'overpriced'.

Anything by Macallan, and Glenfiddich 12.

[dramtastic]

I'm also surprised the number of times members have said Ardbeg in this thread. I could understand some of the Single Casks that have skyrocketed in price, and yes, bottles such as the Supernova at $130-140 probably are priced higher than they can deliver for such young whisky, but the Corry? Uigeadail? Both are rightly recognized as stellar whiskies that could beat a number of older, more expensive bottles H2H. I guess this is simply another example of "to each his own".

I'm also surprised Ardbeg311. Seems that many people have confused 'overrated' with 'overpriced'.

No, no confusion at all!

[MacDeffe]

I have to correct myself about the Clynelish OB, had a dram of the current 14yo tonight and it was a very fine dram! 46% does matter (more than age)

macdeffe

[The Third Dram]

...46% does matter...

I would have to agree. As solid a performer as the older 43%ABV OB bottling was, the newer one definitely has a slight edge (in my opinion).

Best I've tasted, though, is the 22-year old Rare Malts Selection edition distilled in 1972... A true seashore powerhouse!

[Knolly]

Any Macallan I've tried
Most Glenmorangie I've tried
Supernova
Lots of Bowmore

Oh, if I sat and thought about it the list would undoubtedly be long....

What batch was that a'bunadh David? Maybe it's an acquired taste being so heavily sherried, but #14 or #20 might convince you?

Wow - damn, that's pretty much my list right there!!!

Bowmore (in general) = (obvious exceptions aside)
Have to admit that the "new" Glenmorangies are MUCH better than the previous generation though.
Macallan: yup, seems great until you have a kick ass GlenFarclas for half the cost

[schitzengiggles]

Dullmore 12
Dullmore Gran Reserva
Dullmore Cigar Malt
Laphroaig Cairdeas - The first one
Laphroaig 10 (Recent ones)
Dullwhinnie 15
Cardhu

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Any Macallan I've tried ...

Snap ... and most of the young Ardbegs for me.

[lbacha]

I'm going with Macallan, I believe they are rated on past success and while they still make some good bottles I don't think their newer 12 or 18 is anywhere near as good as the older bottlings. I would rather have a Glenfarclas over the newer Macallan's any day...

Oh and this is coming from someone who has a brass plaque with their name on an oak tree (woodlands bottling) at the distillery...

Len

[Onefortheditch]

There are no overrated single malts - they are all wonderful

[Ganga]

I've had a few less than savorable Port Ellens. These tended to be in the Provenance line though.

[peat-chaser]

I dont know the PE OB Batches 1 to 5, but the Batches 6 to 9 I´d call empty and expressionless, the alcohol isnt well integrated and mouthfeel is far from smooth .... and I dont believe # 10 or other oncoming batches will be better.

I nowerdays also prefer Glenfarclas to Macallan bottlings, but not the GF standards like10, 12, 15, 17, 21 or 30, for their special bottlings like vintages, oloroso-cask, x-mas, .... are much better

[DavidUK]

Having recently tasted them, I'd add Uigedial and Corryvrecken to the list. Whilst not bad by any means, in my opinion the similarly priced Laphroaig 18 yo and Lagavullin 16yo blows them both away

[talisker10]

Macallan at any price, age, cask type...

[Onefortheditch]

Seriously it has to be Ardbeg - its a lesson on how to put you off a decent whisky with way over hyped marketing.

[Aidan]

Any Macallan I've tried
Most Glenmorangie I've tried

Snap!

[Onefortheditch]

I have to correct myself about the Clynelish OB, had a dram of the current 14yo tonight and it was a very fine dram! 46% does matter (more than age)

macdeffe

I don't get this 46% business at all? Its seems an arbitrary number to me? What about 45% or 47% and what about cask strength? Surely the best strength depends on the whisky and the drinker? Or is 46% simply the new "magic number" that 40% was many years ago? And if 42 was the answer to the universe, then maybe 42% the answer to whisky strength as well?

Where does all this stuff come from? Its all just too wierd!!

[Onefortheditch]

Diageo have bottled my Talisker at 45.8%. Looks like they've made a howler there!

[FirewallXL5]

This is a nod in the direction of whisky heritage and the old degrees proof scale of measuring alcohol content.

In the really old days the standard bottling strength of whisky was 20 under proof (20 u.p.) so with proof = 100, 20 under proof = 80 degrees proof which translates in modern times into 46% alcohol which is where this strength originates.

However this involves a slight rounding up, the exact measurement is 45.7 or 45.8 so what you have here is the traditional Talisker bottliing strength.

Strength has been progressively reduced over the years to 75 proof (43%) then 70 proof (40%) but the historic strengths do live on reflected in the most common %age alcohol levels used.

[FirewallXL5]

so it's neither arbitrary or a howler but I fear I may be giving my age away! bring back degrees proof!!!!

[Onefortheditch]

This is a nod in the direction of whisky heritage and the old degrees proof scale of measuring alcohol content.

In the really old days the standard bottling strength of whisky was 20 under proof (20 u.p.) so with proof = 100, 20 under proof = 80 degrees proof which translates in modern times into 46% alcohol which is where this strength originates.

However this involves a slight rounding up, the exact measurement is 45.7 or 45.8 so what you have here is the traditional Talisker bottliing strength.

Strength has been progressively reduced over the years to 75 proof (43%) then 70 proof (40%) but the historic strengths do live on reflected in the most common %age alcohol levels used.

That was educational, thanks Firewall. So its a nod to a period in time in whisky heritage, but I can't see how that makes it the best strength for a whisky which seemed to be impllied by a previous poster?

[dramtastic]

I have to correct myself about the Clynelish OB, had a dram of the current 14yo tonight and it was a very fine dram! 46% does matter (more than age)

macdeffe

And if 42 was the answer to the universe, then maybe 42% the answer to whisky strength as well?

Where does all this stuff come from? Its all just too wierd!!

I have a couple of Japanese whiskys bottled 42%, definately not the answer to whisky strength though perfecty OK

[FirewallXL5]

For a flavoursome single malt 'best' is 80 proof & non chill filtered - the way Springbank has always been.
Look at the LFW website new releases & spot an unmistakable trend, new releases from Bunnahabhainn, Glencadam, both 46%, both non chill filtered, and now see even Ledaig and Tobermory (with their new 10 yr old presentations) going the same way & apparently winning Mr Joynson's approval...
80 proof IS the new standard for SMS. Slainge!

[MacDeffe]

To my understanding 46% is the lowest ABV where a whisky won't go cloudy

So if a bottling is under 46% (43 or 40) it us usually chillfiltered. I am only aware of one bottling that is 40% and unchillfiltered and I was told it was/is cloudy. It was Bladnoch who did that for some reason

So the reason 46% whisky is better is due to 2 reasons

1. Not chillfiltered

2. Les waterdilution

/MAcdeffe

[Swedish Chef]

Ardbeg 10 - in Sweden it's over 25% more than other Islay enrty-level bottlings. The fact I really didn't like it doesn't make things better, at it's price I much rather have a Springbank 10. I can't believe the hype of Ardbeg.

I see the HP18 mentioned as overpriced/overrated, here I think it's great value for money (and yummy). It's even 40SEK cheaper than the Glenlivet 18, and a good 300SEK cheaper than the Springbank 15 and Yamazaki 18. The only other whisky in that price range that can match, or beat, it is Laga 16.

[37degrees]

Certainly Aberlour Abunah, though it's not bad. Evan Willians Single Barrel 2000. Irish whisky (have you seen the prices going berserk, they must be overrated).

Single Malts in general
Or the other way: blended is underrated.

[Swedish Chef]

I just bought a few of these at a Tesco special offer of £30 per bottle - certainly not overrated at that price!

You're braking my heart Nick, they're £52 over here. Still a bargain compared to the Longrow C.V. which is £62.

[dramtastic]

I just bought a few of these at a Tesco special offer of £30 per bottle - certainly not overrated at that price!

Still a bargain compared to the Longrow C.V. which is £62.

Notice it didn't stop you buying another bottle SC.

[Swedish Chef]

That bottle was from Germany where it's ~£31.

[ashleypenney]

I have noticed a lot here say Ardbeg i have to disagree, any ardbeg expressions i have tried i ave loved even the blasda

What is it about Ardbeg that people say its overated.

Ash

[Ganga]

It goes back to Jim Murray and his 97s for Ardbegs. I've tried a lot of different Ardbeg 10s and there isn't one that exceeds 91/92 yet he has one over 95.

That said does this mean that Ballantines 17 is now on the list of overated? 97.5

[dramtastic]

Sorry but I slightly disagree with Ganga in this case at least from my point view. As I mentioned earlier, I have bought a lot of whiskys from recommendations on this site. I had never even heard of JM before I bought a bottle of Ardbeg 10, it rated highly amongst a lot of the members on the forum so I purchased it. I never got into it at all and I haven't had an Ardbeg yet that I've enjoyed. Same with HP 12, raved about by many of the punters here(and many other places) so I bought a bottle, has to be one of the dullest whiskys I've tried. Even bought another bottle to see if my point of view had changed, this proved to be even more boring than the first, didn't even seem to possess any smoke.

By and large though, most of the whiskys I've seen recommended here I have enjoyed.

[Ganga]

It would seem that you are slightly agreeing with me in that I find the Ten to be overrated by people, especially Jim Murray. While I find Ardbeg Ten very enjoyable, it doesn't rate anywhere near where Jim Murry rated it. I've had 15 to 20 different bottlings of the Ten and the range from about 82 to 91. Murray rated it a 96 or a 97. Basically he left no room to rate whiskies as being better. This would include things like the Ardbeggeddon and the Provenance which are not just a point or two above any of the Tens.

This year Jim Murray gave the Ballantines 17 a 97.5. Since I haven't had the 2009 Ballantines my question is whether this is a similar situation to the Ardbegs and therefore an overrated whisky.

The topic isn't about whether the whisky is good or bad but rather the ravings or reviews or too great for the whisky.

I always find the Highland Park 12 to have a honey and malty sweetness with just a whisp of smoke. Nothing really intense on the smoke. Complex, no. But I find the balance of the sweetness and smoke to be something I enjoy.

[MARS]

About ardbeg ten, I must said that I don't like it a lot (85/86pts for me. 2008 version)as most of the ardbeg I have tasted. Since last weekend :
I have tried a 10 years old bottled in +-1975 who's well worth 93/94pts(at least)and 2 IB bottling of ardbeg distilled in the sixties absolutely fabulous.

The ardbeg ten was the whisky whos make me start to like whisky. These days, I don't like a lot peated whisky(brora exepted)and prefer sherried version.

I think macallan is highly overrated. Only (very)old version and the 10 years CS are good whisky (i find).