Octomore vs. Supernova

[Jdiddy]

I had the opportunity to taste both this weekend and say I was not BLOWN away with either. I liked the Octomore a bit more as it is on a whole different level. The Ardbeg just tasted like a bit peatier version of the 10 IMO. The Octomore was not as mind blowing as I had thought it would be but I would take it over the Supernova. The Supernova did take water very well and was much better after a few drops. The Octomore did seem a bit one dimensional in taste. I did like the way the smoke explodes after a few seconds in the mouth though. Not worth $220 IMO though.

[bankerjoe]

When and where did this occur?

[Jdiddy]

Julio's Liquors-Whisky a Go Go
Also had the Port Ellen 29

When and where did this occur?

[Willie JJ]

I prefer the Ardbeg. It is just a better spirit than Bruichladdich and no amount of peat can mask that. The real telling thing is that as soon as you add water to the Octo it collapses. The peat and the strength fend off the youth, but water just makes it a rubbery mess. The Ardie stands up much better to this treatment, although it is clearly still very young.

[Leorin]

I like the Ardbeg a little better as well.
But for me both of those whiskies show that this race for the ppm-superlative is not the right way to go as the Supernova tastes just like a very peaty young Ardbeg and the Octomore is in my humble opinion not as good as PC7 for example.
I heard that the following regular Supernova-Release will coast more than 100 Euro. I don't need it at all for that price.
One year ago Ardbeg released a ten year old cask strenght for 50 Euro. Is peating barley this expansive or why to they charge twice the money for a much younger malt now?

[Sherried Malt]

I prefer the Ardbeg. It is just a better spirit than Bruichladdich and no amount of peat can mask that. The real telling thing is that as soon as you add water to the Octo it collapses. The peat and the strength fend off the youth, but water just makes it a rubbery mess. The Ardie stands up much better to this treatment, although it is clearly still very young.

Willie, not to cause thread drift, but that's a very interesting comment regarding the spirit's reaction to water. Since I rarely add water to my whiskies (unless they're too much neat), I've never given this any thought even in the name of science...

How much weight do you give a whisky's ability to stand up to water when you judge its quality? Assuming you drink it neat, of course...

[Willie JJ]

In truth I give very little weight to it, I only mentioned it at all because a drop of water helps in this case to reveal why the Octomore isn't as good (imo) as the Ardbeg. With the water bringing it down, even to where the Ardie is at full strength, the disguise of the strength and the peat is lifted somewhat and you can see it more clearly for the rubbery youth it is. Even without water I'd go for the Ardbeg. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to drink either, although neither would really be high on my list of must have drams.

Cheers

[peergynt323]

I add a lot of weight to a whisky's ability to take water. When you add water, it gains complexity--releases hidden aromas and flavors if you will--and sometimes those aromas and flavors are nasty. They taste fine all wrapped up in the high proof potion, but when you spread them out on the table you realize it's not all that great.

There are a few exceptions, but I tend to prefer my whiskies around 45% for old ones, 50% for young ones. It just seems to be the sweet spot for a balance between complexity and power.