mixing whisky

by **Jon** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:22 am

Regarding the Lagavulin "double matured" Pedro Ximinez finish, I bought the 1984 version at the Oslo airport tax free shop in august (appr £30). I must say its probably the finest whisky I ever tasted - a whole lot of "standard" Lagavulin in there (16 YO is, IMHO, probably the finest "standard issue" whisky of any destillery), only more (the best way I can describe it here at my office without a glass at hand). Recently I bought the 1986 version at the same airport (again appr £30), and I look forward to comparing the the two (still a wee dram or two left in the 1984 bottle). I haven't seen any tasting notes for any of these "vintages", but Michael Jackson tasted the 1979 version in his book and awarded it no less than 95 points (the only one in the book matching the Lagavulin 16 YO, as far as I can see). Can anyone point me to notes for the 1984 and 1986 - or, even better, has anyone experienced these and other versions of the Lagavulin "double matured" Pedro Ximinez finish??

Cheers,
Jon

by **Rudolph Hucker** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:46 am

there are tasting notes for the 1979 in the tasting room on this website

cheers

rudolph

by **Nic Rhodes** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:04 am

Thought I saw the 1988 the other day, we are rushing through these vintages, not 16 years anymore

will have to check this one

by **Ize** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 7:20 am

Hello Jon, I opened 1986 PX Lagavulin on Christmas and I would say that it is good (or even very good) but I feel that one or two year earlier bottling of normal Lagavulin was slightly better. 1986 PX had even rounder taste (sweeter perhaps) and it was even bit watery when compared to "older" Lagavulins. To me it it did not offer value for the money, but I'm sure some would like this better than normal bottling.

Kippis,
Ize

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 12:31 pm

Hi,

I still have to try my Lagavulin DE 1984, I know the 1979, wich was quite good, just wonder about the 1984, but havn't opend yet. Let you know later on...

Erik

by **oneofthree** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Not that familiar with the world of whisky
but am designing whisky advertising campaign for a malt mixed with various flavours such as lime & ginger with spring water.
As far as I know it is a complete no-no to mix whisky with anything other than a little water, or is it??
Hopefully you knowledgable whisky drinkers can pass on some advice.
Thanks

by **Aidan** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 2:54 pm

Some people like mixers with whisky, but it would seem a shame to use very good whisky for such purposes, as you're often drowing the flavour of the malt.

I don't like mixers, personally, but an inexpensive blend would probably be the best to use...

by **Iain** » Wed Apr 02, 2003 3:17 pm

Chivas used to provide all manner of suggestions for mixing Glen Grant 5 yo with mixers such as lime and... err.. I forget the others

You could write to the company and ask if they have any old pr material?

by **oneofthree** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:14 pm

Thanx u guys!

by **Rudy** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 3:56 pm

Hello Jon,

your experience with the double matured Lagavulin is quite the same as mine. They're both great, but the PX finish seems to add a dimension that very much suits my taste. I have the 1981, bottled 2000, haven't tasted others.

Rudy.

by **ceedeedoos** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:16 pm

haven't tried these distiller's editions, but I feel partially sad about the fact that they make so many of them ... I think it might jeopardise the releases of the standard 16yo ...

by **WestVanDave** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:38 am

I've thoroughly enjoyed the 1980 DE PX Lag. with the coding lgv. 4/464 special release limited edition ~ Master Distiller, M. Nicholson, White Horse, Glasgow I recall from the write-up included (now lost) that this was an 18 yr. old, but confirmation is absent from the bottle and the box.

The supply in Canada has been sporadic - and now the only release available is the distilled in 1986 - bottled in 2002 (16 years) with a lgv. 4/490 marking - master distiller unnamed. I haven't opened this one yet (and will likely stock up when I next have a chance) - but I'm curious if anyone would like to comment on the '86 version. Could they have shortened up the process to meet our impatient demand?

Cheers, Dave.