Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Talisker 10 or 18?

Take part in our whisky polls and votes. You can also post your own polls in this forum.

Price aside, which Talisker do you prefer?

Poll ended at Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:56 pm

10
5
23%
18
17
77%
 
Total votes : 22

Talisker 10 or 18?

Postby merritt » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:56 pm

I've read lots of reviews (both Murray, Jackson, and the web) but I'm still having trouble deciding. I'm not the worlds biggest fan of smoke and peat, but I really want to add a Talisker to my collection. I can't afford the 20 or 25 right now so I'm only polling the 10 and 18.

Price aside. Which one is better?
merritt
New member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:35 am

Postby Jan Primus » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:13 am

I like the 18 better, I think you will too.
Jan Primus
New member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Talisker 10 or 18

Postby Danny » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:29 am

I like them both, but if I could only have one it would be the 18. If you are not a great fan of peat and smoke, the 18 is more subtle and not nearly as spicy as the 10.
Danny
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:32 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Talisker 10 or 18

Postby Jan » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:58 am

Danny wrote:I like them both, but if I could only have one it would be the 18. If you are not a great fan of peat and smoke, the 18 is more subtle and not nearly as spicy as the 10.


Precisely - what Danny said.

I too like the the 10yo, but I recently finished off my first bottle of the 18yo and this is a whisky that has shot straigth into my top five of affordable favourites.

Cheers
Jan
Jan
Gold Member
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby SpiritofShetland » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:38 am

I'm going with the consensus here. If you're not that big a peatfreak go with the 18. As will all peaty and smoky whisky the age dampens the harshest tones and gives it a bit more finesse and complexity.

You could also try the Talisker Distillers Edition - finished in amoroso sherry casks which also hides the peat quite a bit.
SpiritofShetland
Silver Member
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Postby Mr Fjeld » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:32 am

Try the 18 instead of the 10. The latter one never impressed me. A decent and good enough whisky but you'll get more of the good things from the island a little further south.

Christian
Mr Fjeld
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:08 pm

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:49 am

The 10 for me is a classic so I voted for the 10... eventhough people say it is not as good as it used to be I still think it is wonderful. For precisely the reasons the others don't say the 10 is why I love it. Big smoke and big spice just love it but plenty of sweetness to off set it from totally blitzing your mouth as in the case some people have said, previously in other forums, the reason that they don't like this dram. If you can handle your cask strengths with out water you will have no problems with this.

But the 18 is good value for money just a toned down version of the 10(I know not as simple as that, there are other strengths to the 18 ).

So it depends whether you want a big flavour or a bigger flavour :wink:

The 18 might be for you though.......
Last edited by irishwhiskeychaser on Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby Aidan » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:12 am

irishwhiskeychaser wrote:The 10 for me is a classic so I voted for the 10... eventhough people say it is not as good as it used to be I still think it is wonderful. For precisely the reasons the others don't say the 10 is why I love it. Big smoke and big spice just love it but plenty of sweetness to of set totally blitzing you mouth as some people have said that don't like this dram. If you can handle your cask strengths with out water you will have no problems with this.

But the 18 is good value for money just a toned down version of the 10(I know not as simple as that, there are other strengths t the 18 ).

So it depends whether you want a big flavour or a bigger flavour :wink:

The 18 might be for you though.......


I think it got worse around the time the took the emphasis on the age statement from the bottle away. It's hard to notice where it says it's a 10 yr old now. I wonder was did this exercise coincide with a change in the structure of the whisky itself?
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:22 am

Aidan wrote:
I think it got worse around the time the took the emphasis on the age statement from the bottle away. It's hard to notice where it says it's a 10 yr old now. I wonder was did this exercise coincide with a change in the structure of the whisky itself?



I only know it from this time so I'm not too unhappy not to have know it in it's better state in the past so I don't know what I'm missing 8)
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby Di Blasi » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:04 pm

I'm not a fan of Talisker, perhaps I haven't had enough, or perhaps cause I don't understand the over-hyped 10 year old. I vote for the 18 year old, it's better, but the 25 year old is unbelievable, very big and wonderful! Also the 175 year anniversary bottling is excellent! Save up for one of them is what I suggest, it's worth it.
Di Blasi
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Postby Aidan » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:06 pm

I've got the 175th anniversary, but haven't opened it. I think you can get it fro around 75 euro, which isn't bad. Of course, in Ireland I paid 85 euro...
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Postby bamber » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:34 pm

10yo for me, but both are great.
User avatar
bamber
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Choochoo » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:36 pm

I'm not a big fan of the Talisker 10, and found the 18yo to be similar but a little more rounded and rich. I'd say that the 18 is slightly better for me. I far prefer the DE or the 175th, that's just because I like the sweetness to give balance to the pepper & smoke.
Choochoo
Silver Member
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:33 pm
Location: West Hartford, CT

Postby PuckJunkie » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:13 pm

I tried all three side by side when I got the Talisker gift set with 20cl bottles of 10, 18, and DE. I far preferred the 10 over the 18, and even over the Distiller's Edition. I've never had the "old" Talisker 10, but the one I have had possessed more balance and force than either of the other expressions. There's a touch of peatiness, but it's not like an Ardbeg or anything. The 18 came off as too sweet for me, especially right after the 10. The Distiller's Edition was nice, with far less peat and a little sherry to it, and backed off the attack some as compared to the 10.

When I polish off the three bottles, the 10 is the only one I'll be replacing. Of the 10-year-olds in my cabinet, it's my favorite, beating out some high-quality malts like Springbank and Laphroaig. I couldn't say the same of the Talisker 18, which I've tried a few times now. But that's not to say I didn't think it was a very nice whisky. I just preferred the 10 and the DE to it. In fact, if you can swing a few extra dollars and you really don't like peat, I'd go with the Distiller's Edition over the 18.

Puck
PuckJunkie
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA

Postby merritt » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:39 am

Thank you everone who voted and left messages, you were all a big help. I have purchased the 18 and its great. I love these forums, its great to get actual consumer feedback, not marketed and hyped industry opinions.

Thanks
merritt
New member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:35 am

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:27 am

Great that you ended up with a bottle that you liked... if your like me you will find that you will actually get into peated malts eventually. I used to mainly drink Irish and enjoyed stuff like Auchentoshan, Dalwhinnie and Glenrothes etc but now into islay as well.

Good luck with your dramming

.
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby scoobypl » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:12 pm

PuckJunkie wrote: beating out some high-quality malts like Springbank and Laphroaig. I couldn't say the same of the Talisker 18, which I've tried a few times now.
Puck


Puck, I was almost offended by this statement :?
Now, the following is not meant to be offensive, even if it may be sounding like that! It is also not meant as a personal attack on you or your opinions... I just jumped on this wagon because it highlights something I am increasingly weary off, because it does injustice to the work of the people in the industry who are doing the best they can....

What do you mean: 'high quality malts'?????

Is that to say that Talisker is not that?
Would you like to elaborate on that?
Is that a personal opinion or is this official?
If it's a personal opinion? on what is it based?
If it's an official opinion... On what study is it based?

I mean: How do we determine "the quality" of a malt? Every single malt has it's highlights and stunning expressions... who are we to say that this or that malt is of High or less high quality? If it's a official opinion I would like to learn what scientific grounds are used to determine quality...
I sincerely hope we are not using a personal opinions to benchmark "quality"! If I am saying; I like this malt better than that...does that say anything about quality? No! It expresses a personal opinion...
If 10 famous whiskywriters agree with my statement...is that a reason to say malt a is of better quality then malt B? I think not.
To be able to determine quality, you have to define what quality is in a whisky.

After more than 20 years of appreciating whisky's (and a malt mileage that far exceeds 3000 expressions) I am more and more convinced that every whisky has the ability to stun ... if it did not untill today...you probably have not come across the right expression...

Be carefull about expressing opinionated generalisations.... they may be right for you... but does that mean the same for all?

My personal opinion as far as the 18 and 10 is concerned: 18 is 'old' style whisky (1950-1960 style), very different from the recent 10yo whitch is a very powerfull vibrant and good dram, BUT, if you have the chance, try a 10yo or an 8yo bottled in the 1980-ties, and you'll find that they to have the sweetness of the current 18yo.

So, both of them are exellent whiskies, but they are different! One is young powerfull and vibrant, the other more sophisticated, smoother and rounder... but both are absolute stunners in the category they are competing in! Better or worse? equally good... but different!

Paul

(hope I did not offend... but this was heartfelt! :oops: )
scoobypl
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:26 am
Location: Belgium

Postby PuckJunkie » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:35 pm

Paul, at no point did I mean to imply Talisker doesn't enjoy the reputation or quality of Springbank or Laphroaig, which would be far from the truth. I just wanted to make the point that when I said it was my favorite 10 yo in the cabinet that it wasn't because there aren't some other good whiskies in there. Perhaps my phrasing would have been better put thus:

"...beating out some other high quality malts..."

I apologize for miscommunicating my point. Impressive tirade, though.

Puck
PuckJunkie
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:35 pm

scoobypl wrote:
PuckJunkie wrote: beating out some high-quality malts like Springbank and Laphroaig. I couldn't say the same of the Talisker 18, which I've tried a few times now.
Puck


Puck, I was almost offended by this statement :?

...........

Be carefull about expressing opinionated generalisations.... they may be right for you... but does that mean the same for all?

(hope I did not offend... but this was heartfelt! :oops: )




Scoobypl I think it is obvious that PuckJunkie was relating a personal opinion which is fine by me. We all feel that this is the reason for these forums, to exercise personal opinion. I know you were not out to be offensive but to say 'I was almost offended by this statement ' is slightly ott.

If I said that about peoples dislike for Irish Whiskey I'd be having words with half the people on the forum all the time :wink: Try and qualify a remark before you rebuke it.

Please realise that everybody is entitled to their say. We are here to agree, sit on the fence :lol: or disagree but try not to be overly forcefull about your point in relation to anothers. Remember it is hard to put context and feeling into the writen word sometimes when you are reading it. You will find that this is a very friendly forum and that's why we all are such a happy easy going bunch.

However it is good to have passionate people on the forum though as whisky needs them so welcome..... 8)
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby hpulley » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:56 pm

To me, Talisker has always been about being spicy with an incredibly long finish. Alas, the 10yo itself is no longer this way but the 18yo is even less so. Thus my vote for the 10yo though I might have picked list none of the above if it had been an available choice.

Harry
hpulley
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Postby scoobypl » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:07 pm

Goes to show that we have to be carefull with the written word (at least if you're not a professional writer! :wink: )

I wanted it to sound a little OTT, although it may have sounded worse than intended :oops: ... but that is probably/hopefully because English is not my 'native tongue'... :wink:
Maybe I should have accentuated the "almost" offended...
I wasn't really... and if Puck would have written it the way he just did...I had had no point.

I gladly accept the "hidden" reprimande in his words: "impressive tirade" :lol: :lol: for he is right!

However, my exagerrating things a bit was a means to an end: I did want to get a response to a question: How do we define "quality" in whisky??? because i do think that we use the word lightly sometimes. :roll:

Paul.

PS1. Appologies to all, offended by my previous post! Hope you can forgive me.
PS2. Who dislikes Irish whisky???? Irish whisky is great! :wink: I have to say the Redbreast 15, 46% unchillfiltered, and a Cadenhead's 13yo cooley peated whom I have on my shelf right now, are absolutely stunning!
scoobypl
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:26 am
Location: Belgium

Postby Jan » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:43 pm

scoobypl wrote:Hope you can forgive me.


Sure. Welcome to the forums - I hope you will enjoy yourself here.

scoobypl wrote:How do we define "quality" in whisky???


Good question actually - I suggest you start a new thread on this subject (in order not to hi-jack this one) - and let's open a discussion....

Cheers
Jan
Jan
Gold Member
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Postby PuckJunkie » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:29 pm

scoobypl wrote:...PS1. Appologies to all, offended by my previous post! Hope you can forgive me.
PS2. Who dislikes Irish whisky???? Irish whisky is great! :wink: I have to say the Redbreast 15, 46% unchillfiltered, and a Cadenhead's 13yo cooley peated whom I have on my shelf right now, are absolutely stunning!

No worries here. Except... I can't get the Redbreast 15 here! Just the 12 yo. I get very sad whenever I'm reminded of this. :(

Puck
PuckJunkie
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:37 pm

scoobypl wrote:
However, my exagerrating things a bit was a means to an end: I did want to get a response to a question: How do we define "quality" in whisky??? because i do think that we use the word lightly sometimes. :roll:

Paul.



I actually agree we probaly should kick this off as another forum as it is an interesting topic.

Go for it Paul open up your first forum.
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Postby scoobypl » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:47 am

Done... :wink:
scoobypl
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:26 am
Location: Belgium


Return to Whisky Poll

Whisky gift and present finder