Ganga wrote:What I can tell you is that I will not switch over to the QC from the 10. These are totally different expressions from each other.
Ganga wrote:1. I think the 10 yo provides much more of what I want (43% instead of 40% helps).
Swedish Chef wrote:Ganga wrote:1. I think the 10 yo provides much more of what I want (43% instead of 40% helps).
All the QC bottles I've bought have been 48%, 70cl purchased in Sweden plus 70cl and 100cl in Germany. The 10yo on the other hand have all been 40%.
charlano wrote:Hi, last August, I bought a bottle of laphroaig quarter cask at the big LCBO in Ottawa. I had already tasted it some times before. It found it to be a little like the 10y but mellower and more complex. However, when I opened my bottle, I was a bit disappointed. It seemed to me that it was much more peaty and not as well balance as the ones I got before. So I tough it may be just me...
Last week, I did a taste of whiskies with my friend (as we often do) and we compared both QC we had. He have a bottle opened 2 years ago. Yes I know, some will say that it is because its bottle was open a long way before and blah blah blah (I tested it with 2 bottles of bowmore 12 yo of the same batch, 1 with 1½ old with 1'' remaining liquid and the other brand new and really not much difference). Moreover, I really remember when I first tasted it as being far more complex than mine. So we compared both and we came to the same conclusion: mine was much more peaty, less sweet and much less complex than his. It could really have been two different laphroaig expressions. It is still enjoyable but, I would rather go for the 10yo for the price.
So my question is: have you ever experienced some noticeable inconsistencies between 2 batches of QC ?
Lucas wrote:QC is better than the modern 10yo but maybe someone has some 1990s 10 stashed away to compare?
Ganga wrote:I was noting the two different proofs available for the 10. I believe all the QC bottles have been 48% since inception.
charlano wrote:Cask strength is really good on its own and like other CS expressions, it literally explodes in the mouth. But when we added water to bring back its strength like the regular expression, we both agreed that the regular 10yo has more complexity to it...
charlano wrote:...how can we compare a regular expression with a CS then?
The Third Dram wrote:With this in mind, the next step involves discerning how to elicit the optimal characteristics of each bottling. This is, to a great extent, a question of personal taste - particularly as regards how much water to add to cask strength whiskies.
The Third Dram wrote:To use your example of the standard strength Laphroaig 10 Year Old versus the Cask Strength edition, I'd personally opt to taste the first as is and the second with a minimal amount of water added. For me (me emphasized), such a strategy allows each version to show at its best. From this point, it then becomes a matter of pinpointing the positive aspects of each whisky, and how those aspects differ from one another.
charlano wrote:...the vatting of the regular 10yo seems different to me than the CS expression and seems more complex to some extent.
tobor8man wrote:In my limited experience there are inconsistencies with Laphroaig...