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

Lord of The Isles discontinued?

All your whisky related questions answered here.

Lord of The Isles discontinued?

Postby Mr Fjeld » Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:37 am

The Lord of The Isles is lacking from the Ardbeg webshop. Forever?

http://www.ardbeg.com/ardbeg/Shop_ShopC ... egoryID=16

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

Postby kallaskander » Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:48 am

Hi there,

hello Christian, the sales agents of the new owner Luis Viton Moet Hennesy do offer the Lord to wholesale and retail shops still. Heard the rumour that even the price is a bit lower. But I would not swear to that.

Greetings
kallaskander
kallaskander
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Heddesheim, Germany

Postby Tom » Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:22 am

It was coming our way for a while now. The rumours i heard say it will dissapear (wich is normal as they have no stock for a couple of years from 25Y old) but will make it appearance again. however everybody agrees that it will be different, thats for sure.
Ardbeg was mothballed in 1981 for almost ten years, so in theory there couldn't be any 25Y old in their warehouses as of next year. Wether or not this is the fact remains to be seen as it is very possible to buy casks back from independent bottlers.
So to be honest, nobody can fully answer your question if it will be gone forever or not (Well, Stuart Thompson can), but logically thinking shows it will be gone for quite a few years, they will undoubtebly release a new 25 when they can, but it will be different since they use different kind of malt and thus spirit now.
Tom
Gold Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Belgium

Lord of the isles is no more

Postby corbuso » Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:53 am

There won't be anymore Lord of the Isles for at least 18 years, since their stocks from the 70's is completely out (5 sherry casks left in june 05) and they have very few casks of 1997!

Also, my guess is that Ardbeg released the kildalton 1980 (lightly peated) last year, because they had too much of it and not enough o f heavily peated malt for "mixing" (don't know how the SWA would like now to name this operation),
So If you want to drink old ardbeg in a few years, buy it now!

Pat
corbuso
Gold Member
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 11:56 am

Postby Admiral » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:04 pm

Whilst we know that Lord of the Isles is (currently) a 25 year old, its age is not the most obvious feature or main marketing point of the packaging.

There is no reason why they couldn't choose some of the finest and best quality 10 year old casks, and release it under the name of Lord of the Isles. LOTI is simply a name and it's a name they've applied to one of their rarer, more exotic and more exclusive bottlings. There is no reason why they couldn't market the same thing as no-age-statement, and happily put good-quality 10 year old in the bottle.

(Incidentally, the 1977 Ardbeg and one or two bottlings of the Committee Reserve are significantly better than the LOTI. Don't fall for the mistake of thinking that just because it's 25 years old it must be good! :) )

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby Tom » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:15 pm

The LOTI is the only OB that is officially called the 25Y old. So I must disagree, it would be a bad marketing move IMHO to name a 10Y old LOTI. It would spread confusion above everything else. And i really doubt they would actually do that. The LOTI has something of a cult status right now, and this is only gonna get worse when it is no longer availeble. Releasing a younger LOTI would be greatly against marketing and prophet odds, as the LOTI will undoubtebly rise in price within the year.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Edit: Just had to add that i really like the LOTI. Offcourse this is entirely personal taste, but I have rated it just 1 point less then the 77.Possibly due to the sherry influence, although mild I find it quite obvious in the taste. also for its age and given the fact that its an OB relatively good priced.
Tom
Gold Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby Admiral » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:28 pm

I agree Tom.....it would be an unfortunate marketing move. But that's not to say it can't or won't happen! :)

You are right...the expression has a great reputation. And that is why I think changing the age is a possible likelihood. Do you think Ardbeg would like to see that reputation forgotten about - build a great product and market, and then take it away for 18 years?

(It's a bit like Macallan ESC......the name stays the same, but the age and contents can always change).

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby lambda » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:39 pm

What about the stuff they produced between 1989 and 1997? Is there enough stock to make a LOTI (or whatever) in its late teens in the coming years? Or has this all disappeared into the 10yo?
lambda
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:08 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby Lawrence » Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:39 pm

Maybe they poured the last LOTI into Serendipity...........
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Mr Fjeld » Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:46 pm

Hehe, that thought struck me as well!
The LOTI is by all means a good whisky but there are so many interesting whiskies I haven't tasted yet so for the price of the LOTI I'd rather go with the others (Cragganmore, Auchentoshan 3wood, Aberlour 10 etc). I actually wonder if the Lord of the isles is too smooth for me.......as in not too challenging?

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

Postby Deactivated Member » Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:16 pm

I found my last bottle somewhat disappointing--very good stuff, to be sure, but not what one would hope for at the age and price. I have another bottle stashed away and will probably leave it for some years. Maybe I will appreciate it more when my tongue is more mature.

No doubt there will be a dearth of older Ardbegs for quite some time; just a fact of life. There is no 17 any more. Whether they'd put the LOTI name on a younger vatting--15, 18, 20--is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. The stuff is what it is, regardless of the name on the label. Moral: Enjoy what you have while you have it.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Spirit of Islay » Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:23 pm

Hi Guys ,
In my opinion i would say there will never be another LOTI as the make up of it is pretty unique , 1974/1975/1976 Ardbeg ! I can't see how they will reproduce the tastes of these years due to the way the barley was malted then .
I hope they don't release a younger/different aged Loti as it would totally ruin the magic of this release . I see the price at LFW has also gone up so i assume the stocks are definetly dwindling .
Corbuso , don't go off what you see in the warehouses as whats left , most of the older stuff is stored at Broxburn , but the 70's stuff is running out (as it does ) . The reason for the lack of 1997 stock could be due to (A) only starting distilling at the end of june and (B) the problems associated with starting production in a distillery thats been run down for many a year beforehand .

It'll be interesting to see which way the bottlings go once the old 1970's stuff does finally run out .


Slainté
Gordon
User avatar
Spirit of Islay
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Usually somewhere with Whisky......

Ardbeg TEN, LOI and 10 YO

Postby corbuso » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:23 pm

Since they have only casks from 1998 (with some very few exceptions), it would be very difficult for them to make any new LOI with some 10YO malt!

Also, the Ardbeg Ten is not 10 YO!
Ten does not refer to the age of the spirit (10YO), but as a (trade) name, same is true for the former 17.
The "TEN" and "17" are like trade name "Very young"or "Legend".

FYI

At the time of Allied, the "Ten" was made of older spirits (15-17 YO and more), as reflected by the change of taste with the Glenmorangie bottling...
corbuso
Gold Member
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 11:56 am

Postby Mr Fjeld » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:02 pm

The "TEN" and "17" are like trade name "Very young"or "Legend".

Hardly so! No, you cannot put whatever you wish in a whisky with an agestatement on the label. As far as I know the age rule is very strict in that regard as you cannot put younger whisky in the bottle than the age indicated on the bottle. Am I right in saying that most whiskies actually contain partly older whisky and if it doesn't contain whisky from several years it's often called a vintage?

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

Postby kallaskander » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:36 pm

Hi there,

Christian I think you are absolutely right. The youngest whisky in a bottle be it single malt or blend defines the age of this bottling. That is why we have a lot "new" whiskies with no age statement (NAS) like the "3D" from Bruichladdich, like the "Traditional" from Benromach, like the "Spirit of Speyside" from Benriach like all the Bowmore´s with names instead of age statements. They all contain malts under the age of ten and the industry is reluctant to put an age statement onto the bottles which is below 10 years.
It is true that older bottlings, OB and IB which were not single cask fillings contained partly much older barrels for depth colour and flavour but with the scarcity of old casks this window has narrowed down. Were there malts of casks aged up to 25 years or even older in the bottling of a standard it is at the moment down to ( I would guess) 15 or 17 years at the most. Probably even younger in many cases.
A bottling of whiskies from one year alone is called a vintage and is a vatting of casks from one production period.

Greetings
kallaskander
kallaskander
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Heddesheim, Germany

Postby Lawrence » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:52 pm

Am I right in saying that most whiskies actually contain partly older whisky


Yes, this is correct, a lot (but not all) of OB bottlings have older whiskies in the make up.

That is why we have a lot "new" whiskies with no age statement (NAS) like the "3D" from Bruichladdich, like the "Traditional" from Benromach, like the "Spirit of Speyside" from Benriach like all the Bowmore´s with names instead of age statements. They all contain malts under the age of ten and the industry is reluctant to put an age statement onto the bottles which is below 10 years.


Personally I find this practice a little silly, if it's a six year old, then tell me. The odds are I'm still going to buy it and to further compound the silliness they often give you enough info to determine the age in any case.
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Ardbeg TEN, LOI and 10 YO

Postby Spirit of Islay » Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:11 pm

corbuso wrote:Since they have only casks from 1998 (with some very few exceptions), it would be very difficult for them to make any new LOI with some 10YO malt!

Also, the Ardbeg Ten is not 10 YO!
Ten does not refer to the age of the spirit (10YO), but as a (trade) name, same is true for the former 17.
The "TEN" and "17" are like trade name "Very young"or "Legend".

FYI

At the time of Allied, the "Ten" was made of older spirits (15-17 YO and more), as reflected by the change of taste with the Glenmorangie bottling...


Is this a wind up ?
"the Ardbeg Ten is not 10 YO!"
I think you've been buying some dodgy bottles cos on the one i've got it says Guaranteed 10yo and the 17yo says Guaranteed 17yo .
Actually FYI the Allied Guaranteed 10yo was closer to 13yo .
There are casks of varing ages going back to 1990 (also a few 1975's) in the warehouse opposite Stuart and Jackies front Door , they usually have had a 1990 open during the feis ile tours .

Slainté
Gordon
User avatar
Spirit of Islay
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Usually somewhere with Whisky......

Postby Lawrence » Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:40 am

Thankfully I missed that post SOI but good eye for cathcing it. I wonder how people get so far off track?

I presume that the Very Young, distilled 1998 and bottled in 2004 is actually an 11 year old by this logic? :?
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Ize » Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:48 pm

To be precise Ardbeg Ten front etiquette says "Guaranteed TEN Years Old". Where as in Ardbeg 17 is written "Guaranteed 17 Years Old". :wink:

But well, I do not know in what sense the original posting about the age statements was set ... but to me the age statement of these bottles is quite clear.
Ize
Silver Member
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Up north, Finland

Postby Crispy Critter » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:58 am

Perhaps, it should say, "Guaranteed at least TEN years old." :)
Crispy Critter
Silver Member
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:50 am
Location: Chicago

Postby voigtman » Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:36 am

But, legally, this is EXACTLY what the two age statements say! The youngest whisky in Ardbeg TEN and Ardbeg 17 is at least 10 years and 17 years old, respectively. I am really puzzled as to how this can be confusing at all.
voigtman
New member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Easthampton, MA USA

Postby corbuso » Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:51 am

Dear Christian
You are right, that the spirit can not be younger than the age statement on the label, but in Ardbeg "Ten" and "17" is NOT the age statement and you will not find nowhere on the bottle "this bottle contains whisky matured xxx years" or something alike. "Ten" and "17" is the name of range and is often read as the age of the spirit.

Have a look at your bottles !
corbuso
Gold Member
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 11:56 am

Postby Mr Fjeld » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:00 am

Hi Carbuso!
The Ten and 17 are both Guaranteed their respective ages which mean they may both contain whisky older than the age statement but not younger ! I'm sorry to say this is nothing to discuss as it's a matter of law not our interpretation or wishful thinking. Instead, you should enjoy a glass of the lovely Ten knowing it doesn't consist of whisky under the tender age of ten.

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

Postby Deactivated Member » Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:59 am

Granted Ardbeg is as old as it claims, but the idea of branding a whisky with a number that is not an age statement is quite an interesting idea. Has anyone suggested it to Bruichladdich?
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Ize » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:22 pm

voigtman wrote:But, legally, this is EXACTLY what the two age statements say! The youngest whisky in Ardbeg TEN and Ardbeg 17 is at least 10 years and 17 years old, respectively. I am really puzzled as to how this can be confusing at all.

Hear hear!

And I'm pretty sure, that on one lovely(?) day there will be Ardbegs that will consist of also 10yo and 17yo stuff respectively since the labeling gives the chance for it, not just all over 13yo or 20yo stuff ...
Ize
Silver Member
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Up north, Finland

Postby voigtman » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:51 pm

Nick Brown wrote:Granted Ardbeg is as old as it claims, but the idea of branding a whisky with a number that is not an age statement is quite an interesting idea. Has anyone suggested it to Bruichladdich?


This has been done before with bourbon. An example is Wild Turkey 101 proof, which used to be 8 years old in both the USA and other markets. The label stated it was 8 years old and the "8" was large and prominent. Then the USA product became a NAS product and the big "8" remained, but the age statement vanished. Presumably, most customers did not notice or did not care. Then later on, the big "8" vanished as well. So now Wild Turkey 101 is still 8 years old in at least some foreign markets, but is NAS in the USA. Supposedly, in the USA, it contains bourbons ranging down to 6 years old.

This two stage scheme, and the cool and calculated manner in which it was carried out, is exactly why I have an abiding distrust of any whisk(e)y lacking an age statement. I do not argue that NAS whisk(e)ys are all lacking or bad. Quite the contrary: there are a number of good examples of NAS whisk(e)ys, e.g., Aberlour a'bunadh. It is just that it opens the door to a slippery slope of charging aged whisk(e)y premium prices for possibly very young whisk(e)y. This latter cannot fail to appeal to the accountants. Given that the master distillers do not always have 100% say in what gets bottled, and when, I find this troubling. And, ironically, this all seemed to start right after Glenfiddich replaced their NAS with the 12 YO.

What I like about age statements is that time itself is the one thing in all of life and existance that cannot be changed in any way. Sure, distilleries can experiment with charred wood chips and microwaving casks, etc., but nothing gets around the age statement legality, UNLESS the age statement itself is dumped or the laws are changed. Like they say, if you cannot build a better mousetrap, breed a dumber mouse. I prefer age statements, other things equal.
voigtman
New member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Easthampton, MA USA

Postby Mr Fjeld » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:55 pm

I now see that voigtman answered it so much better than I, but here it is anyway:

Nick Brown wrote:Granted Ardbeg is as old as it claims, but the idea of branding a whisky with a number that is not an age statement is quite an interesting idea. Has anyone suggested it to Bruichladdich?

I see what you mean, but don't you think this would be problematic as soon as the numbers go past the digit 3? I guess it doesn't hurt if you wish to call a whisky - and explisitly states so - "Number Four/4 or something, but I cannot help but think of this as slightly speculative and confusing - at least towards the inexperienced buyer. I know I certainly wouldn't like to read everything in "small print" to avoid being hoaxed when buying whisky.

Ize:
And I'm pretty sure, that on one lovely(?) day there will be Ardbegs that will consist of also 10yo and 17yo stuff respectively since the labeling gives the chance for it, not just all over 13yo or 20yo stuff ...

So how would you keep the "distillery flavour" intact if you only presented the market with "vintages" ?

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

Postby Spirit of Islay » Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:38 pm

Mr Fjeld wrote:Hi Carbuso!
The Ten and 17 are both Guaranteed their respective ages which mean they may both contain whisky older than the age statement but not younger ! I'm sorry to say this is nothing to discuss as it's a matter of law not our interpretation or wishful thinking. Instead, you should enjoy a glass of the lovely Ten knowing it doesn't consist of whisky under the tender age of ten.

Skål!
Christian

Now come on Christian , it's not like it's wrote in great big letters on the front of the packaging and on the label ......... :D


It's not hard to work out what years are in each bottling , the 17yo was put together in 1997 with Jim Murrays assistance , so it contains Ardbeg from 1980 or before . The first batch of the TEN was released in 2001 so contains Ardbeg from 1990 or 1991 (it might have 1989 in but is highly unlikely as they only started distilling in Nov 89 ) .
The other bottlings :-
As Previously stated The Lord of the Isles contains Ardbeg from 1974 , 1975 and 1976 ( released 2001 ) .
The Uigeadail contains 1990 and 1993 ex-bourbon casks and 1970's ex-sherry casks .

Slainté
Gordon
User avatar
Spirit of Islay
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Usually somewhere with Whisky......

Postby Deactivated Member » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:48 am

Voigtman, I take your point about age statements, but they can be limiting. Take Bruichladdich's 3D, for example, which is a vatting of whiskies of rather widely varying age. If you had to put a number on it, it would be quite a low one, which would give the consumer an impression which might be misleading; much of the whisky in that bottle is not so young at all. Certainly the bottling is Bruichladdich's attempt to get some bulk out of young whisky. But unless you can print on the label the actual range of ages used--and I'm not at all sure that's even legal--putting an age statement of "5" (or whatever) on such a bottling is both commercially suicidal and substantively irrelevant. Is it good whisky or not? That's what really matters. Age statements are meaningful in most instances, but are not necessarily appropriate for every bottling.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby hpulley » Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:50 am

It is only legal to put the youngest age on the bottle and the SWA frowns on even marketing the fact that there is older stuff, like when Johnny Walker Blue used to mention that there was some 60yo whisky in it. It is not illegal to do the latter, or to mention that it includes some distillations from 1970, but it is frowned upon and since it is getting more popular I can see the SWA putting that frown in formal writing soon.

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

Postby voigtman » Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:40 pm

MrTattieHeid wrote:Voigtman, I take your point about age statements, but they can be limiting. Take Bruichladdich's 3D, for example, which is a vatting of whiskies of rather widely varying age. If you had to put a number on it, it would be quite a low one, which would give the consumer an impression which might be misleading; much of the whisky in that bottle is not so young at all. Certainly the bottling is Bruichladdich's attempt to get some bulk out of young whisky. But unless you can print on the label the actual range of ages used--and I'm not at all sure that's even legal--putting an age statement of "5" (or whatever) on such a bottling is both commercially suicidal and substantively irrelevant. Is it good whisky or not? That's what really matters. Age statements are meaningful in most instances, but are not necessarily appropriate for every bottling.


Mr. T, I agree with you! I certainly enjoy (and purchase) various NAS whisk(e)ys and, for example, I am eagerly awaiting the Laphroaig QC in NH. Frankly, Bruichladdich distillery is not at all a concern: since their rescue and revitalization, they have done everything, IMHO, just right. Textbook perfect, even. Indeed, my only quibble with Bruichladdich is that I cannot immediately afford to buy at least one bottle of each release in their ever expanding product line. Even in the restricted product subset available in the USA! My wish list includes the 15 YO, the XVII, the Links (St. Andrews, based on your remarks about it), the Full Strength and the 3D, if it is available to me at some point. No doubt others will be added to the list.

My real concern is distilleries going in exactly the opposite direction from Bruichladdich. Examples: 1) Quietly dropping age statements just to hustle young whisk(e)y out the door at old whisk(e)y prices. 2) Reducing proof from 101 US proof (= 50.5% ABV) down to 90 US proof (= 45% ABV), without any reduction in bottle price. 3) Using a label number in such a way as to trick the unwary into assuming it is an age statement. This is where unambiguous age statements provide some real benefit: when the distillery thinks they can go in whatever direction they want, without negative consequences.

Finally, I should note that my Old Overholt straight rye whiskey states right at the bottom of the front label that it is 4 years old. And I also quite like my Signatory Vintage Islay 5 YO, despite the cheap green bottle, screw cap and $18.99 price tag. So youth, per se, doesn't scare me off. It's unfortunate that distilleries are so hung up on image (must be 10 YO or above, caramel colored, chill filtered, fancy bottles, fancy package, etc.) and seem to trust consumers so little. Maybe they are right overall, but it is still annoying to me. And, ceteris paribus, I still prefer age statements whenever feasible (with room for exceptions, as noted above): it helps keep things honest. Ed V.
voigtman
New member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:40 am
Location: Easthampton, MA USA

Postby kallaskander » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:05 pm

Hi there,

voigtman I can say that I totally agree with your last post. But when I read it I thought about the "us consumers" part. Not that it can be taken pars pro toto or proof anything but I went and copied the following out oft the forums statistics.

We have 1510 registered users
Our users have posted a total of 25183 articles
The newest registered user is Xpect
In total there are 30 users online :: 3 Registered, 1 Hidden and 26 Guests [ Administrator ] [ Moderator ]
Most users ever online was 109 on Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:07 pm
Registered Users: kallaskander, Lord_Pfaffin, voigtman

We are, so it seems an informally organised group of consumers here and we like that most of the time. We tend to post mostly about malts and many of us do drink blends, bourbon, whiskey and other related spirits as well.
But the main world whisky market is blends. I think we could call ourselves "informed consumers" without being too pompous. And I don`t want to say that I am a "better informed or better whisky drinker" at all because I take part in whisky forums.
And you can be a connoisseur or even an expert without taking part in a whisky forum. All that given.
But if you look at that number "1510 registered users" which is a lot, I can not help the feeling that "The industry" has, as yet, not too much reason to take a care about people who know a thing or two about whisky and really would and could apreciate if things would be kept honest. We are too few, more is the pitty.

Greetings
kallaskander
kallaskander
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Heddesheim, Germany

Postby Deactivated Member » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:15 pm

Voigtman - your posting is a distilled essence of my quibbles with Bruichladdich distillery. The fact that you say you can't afford to buy every bottling that Bruichladdich produces suggests that you are concentrating on the output of this one distillery to the detriment of the others. Their various styles are so various that they can't possibly all be the best in their fields - peaty, winey, malty, young, old, single casks, multiple ages vatted together. It strikes me that they are taking their devotees for a ride, passing off whisky that is, even at its best, rather plain and, at its worst, unintegrated, atrificially flavoured junk and selling it at greatly inflated prices. If you object to distilleries that sell young whisky at old whisky prices, you need look no further than 3D. Posters here talk about how their whisky clubs have tasted the latest Bruichladdich offering or have bought the latest gimmick, often give lukewarm praise, and then declare the distillery to be the greatest on Earth. Meanwhile, good distilleries continue to send all their product off for blending, or even shut up shop completely, because people show no interest in their products.

If Bruichladdich start to produce good whisky, I will be the first to laud it. But that will be a few years away, at the earliest. Meanwhile, all you are seeing is a clever marketing of whisky that was not good enough to sustain the distillery under its previous owners - and futures sales of ridiculous novelties. Octomore! Does the whisky world really need a whisky that is four times as peaty as its nearest rival? Of course not, it is just a novelty in the same way as Loch Dhu. Does the whisky world really need to have whisky flavoured with every type of obscure wine or spirit in the world? Of course not, it's just a novelty like flavoured coffees. Novelty products have their place, and products of serious quality have their place, but I suspect that they are seldom made under the same roof.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Lawrence » Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:23 pm

Nick, you make some valid points and I would like to know waht you thing of the 'standard' Bruichladdich bottlings, the 10, 15, 17 and some of the older ones?
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Mr Fjeld » Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:10 pm

First of all Nick, let me say that I value your comment and respect your point of view no matter how different from my own that may be!


Nick Brown wrote:Their various styles are so various that they can't possibly all be the best in their fields - peaty, winey, malty, young, old, single casks, multiple ages vatted together. It strikes me that they are taking their devotees for a ride, passing off whisky that is, even at its best, rather plain and, at its worst, unintegrated, atrificially flavoured junk and selling it at greatly inflated prices.

Taste is a subjective matter and I must add I haven't tasted any other Bruichladdichs than the 10, 15, 17, Infinity and the first edition 3D. The last one was good but it was more interesting than than good because the peat is of another and more mellow character than you'd expect to find among the Kildalton distilleries. The others are in my view (10,15,17,Infinity) perfectly good whiskies in their own right and worth buying. I especially have something of a sweet spot for the 10yo! There is nothing to suggest that any of those are of inferiour quality and I believe your comment about the distillery closing because of this low quality whisky is a shot in the dark. I believe the fact that Bruichladdich was closed in the first place had more to do with the whisky market going downhill in the eighties and I'm sure you remember that happened to other distilleries as well - including Ardbeg. Are you implying that todays Ardbegs are of inferiour quality as well?
If you object to distilleries that sell young whisky at old whisky prices, you need look no further than 3D

That is an argument I can subscribe to but in my market any cask strenght whisky is rather on the expensive side. It wouldn't make much difference anyway here.

Posters here talk about how their whisky clubs have tasted the latest Bruichladdich offering or have bought the latest gimmick, often give lukewarm praise, and then declare the distillery to be the greatest on Earth.

.........I would say the same about Macallan which I find highly overrated and far too expensive. Too bad I've only tried the all sherry 10yo because I guess my stance isn't really justified because I haven't tried enough of the Macallan OBs. My fault and it doesn't really mean Macallan is a bad distillery.

Meanwhile, good distilleries continue to send all their product off for blending, or even shut up shop completely, because people show no interest in their products.

But you can hardly blame Bruichladdich for that? After all, wouldn't you say that the fault should be adressed to the distilleries themselves for doing such a poor job at marketing their own products?

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

Next

Return to Questions & Answers

Whisky gift and present finder