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

Lagavulin 12 CS, Lagavulin 16 or Lagavulin 25 CS

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

Lagavulin 12, Lagavulin 16 or Lagavulin 25

Laga 12 CS
13
34%
Laga 16
23
61%
Laga 25 CS
2
5%
 
Total votes : 38

Lagavulin 12 CS, Lagavulin 16 or Lagavulin 25 CS

Postby Lugarteniente » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:42 pm

What´s the best Lagavulin?
Lugarteniente
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:33 am

Postby PeatPirate » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:59 pm

Hi all,

Off course it's the 12 Y CS. Followed by the 16 Y and then the 25 Y. The younger the better it seems, which is rather unusual?

I wonder if Ardbeg is still my favourite Islay whisky now, Lagavulin is catching up. Perhaps it's time for a head to head with Ardbeg 10 and 17 and Lagavulin 12 Y CS and 16


Grtz. PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Lawrence » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:18 am

THE 12!!!!!!!

If you want a peaty Islay in that style have a Caol Ila. The 16 is by far the better of the two.

Now you know. :wink:
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Deactivated Member » Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:25 am

Lawrence wrote:THE 12!!!!!!!

If you want a peaty Islay in that style have a Caol Ila. The 16 is by far the better of the two.

Now you know. :wink:


What? :?
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Lawrence » Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:48 am

It's Ok, it's a private joke Mr. T.

:D
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Admiral » Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:47 am

The 16yo by a long way.

Then the 12CS

And then the 25yo bringing up the rear.



As an added bonus, the 16yo also represents the best value for money.

Cheers,
Frodmiral :D
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby PeatPirate » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:31 am

Hi Admiral,

The 16? Just another one of your private jokes probably :lol:

Perhaps you should try the 12 first :-D


Bye, and long live private Jokes


PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Nock » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:36 am

You guys still drinking the 16yo from White Horse? Cause the stuff coming from Port Ellen is just not doing it for me like the 12yo CS. (not that I have had this glorious Lagavulin back in the day . . . the stuff from White Hores . . . buy I have heard tales.)

Ya, I give the 12yo first place.
But maybe I just like em younger and stronger :lol:

Nock
Nock
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:57 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby PeatPirate » Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:18 am

Hi Nock,

I agree with you. I like the Lagavulin Young and Strong, perhaps it's because I'm aged and mellow myself, so the dram and I are in perfect balance that way?


How do you all drink the 12 CS with or without water?



Greetz from PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby PeatPirate » Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:20 am

Oh yeah Nock?


What the hell are hores? Forgot the W? :-)



Bye
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby bamber » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:20 am

The 16yo gets my vote. An all time great for sure. The 12yo is also very very good but not nearly as complex (IMHO). I've not had the 25yo - mainly because it is too expensive, but also because I've never heard a good word said about it.
User avatar
bamber
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Admiral » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:59 am

Hi Admiral,

The 16? Just another one of your private jokes probably


No, there's nothing private about a simple fact, and an educated palate that can tell a good thing! :D

Hee hee :wink:

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby Aidan » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:32 pm

I can't vote as I have not tasted the 25, but if it's any way as good as the 16...
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Postby MacChristensen » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:14 pm

Funny you´r bringing this up now, as I had all 3 of them head to head last friday...

I rate them as follows

1 - 12 yo cs
2 - 16 yo
3 - 25 yo

Why - well I like the punch and the youth in the 12yo, the 16 yo settles to quickly if you ask me (and yes, I think it isn´t what it used to be), and there is to much granny´s ol´ cupboard/attich in the 25yo..

Slainte,
Jesper
MacChristensen
New member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:52 pm

Postby Spirit of Islay » Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:50 pm

1) Laga 12yo CS
2) Laga 16yo
3) Laga 25yo
The 12yo by a mile !
The 16's a tad too sweet and the 25 was a major disappointment .
The Mission Lagas were slightly better than the 25 even reduced to 46% , mind you it was fantastic at CS at one of Jim's festival masterclasses .
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 PeatPirate » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:13 am

Admiral wrote:

No, there's nothing private about a simple fact, and an educated palate that can tell a good thing!


Hi Admiral,

:-D In fact I agree with you there. My palate is very happy with the way this poll is developing. My palate thinks he's a winner :-)

It's no surprise for me that the 12 YO is gonna win this poll, for what it's worth. ;-)

But I myself like the 16 YO also very much :-)

Grtz. PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Deactivated Member » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:54 am

My vote's for the Distiller's Edition. Yeah, just had to be different.

If it means that much to you, PP, I'll vote for the 12, just so you can feel validated! :P

I have in fact opened my bottle of 25 (#268 of 9,000) this very evening. And...I really like it! I like it a lot. It is of course not the peat bomb that the younger expressions are, and probably it isn't as deep as one would hope for in a 25. Frodo Factor? No, probably not worth what I paid for it. But that's water over the dam. I'm going to get along very well with this bottle, I think.
Deactivated Member
 

Lagavulin

Postby PeatPirate » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:36 am

:) hi all :wink:

Well mr. T. you have to vote for the 12, because the distiller's edition is not a part of this poll :evil:

And yes it means a lot to me. I tasted the 12 Y last monday for the first time (tongue in cheek, which is not an easy thing to do) and I like it very much. Off course i like to share this feeling with other people :-D

Friday I will open my bottle of Lagavulin 1988 Distillers edition. Perhaps you are right that this member of the lagavulin family is the one to prefer. I'll let you know :wink:

Grtz. PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Frodo » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:06 am

I've only had the 16yr old, but IMHO it's a hard dram to top...
Frodo
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Postby Admiral » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:40 am

Ah, now if you include the Distillers Edition........ :)

That changes things!

The 1981 DE......what a dram! I've also had the '86 and '87. Both were very, very good, but that 1981 still stands out!

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby PeatPirate » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:17 am

Hi Admiral,

The distiller's edition is off topic :lol:

besides that I have to taste it first.

12 Y CS Rulez :wink:


PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Lawrence » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:31 am

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but a lot of people expect the peat 'punch' to increase with age. Peat decreases with age so naturally the 16 has less 'punch' than the 12 and the 25 less than the 16.

The amount of peat in a whisky determines does not determine its quality, is there a bit of that going on here?
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Postby Admiral » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:59 pm

Very true, Lawrence. I trust people aren't simply voting to suit a peat-meter?

I'll be the first to state the obvious that the 12yo CS is a peatier whisky than the 16yo, but the 16yo just has so much more going on. The best whiskies are those that offer some complexity, those that hit you on various levels.

For me personally, (and hey, I realise this is all subjective), the 12yo CS is a delicious punch of peat, iodine, and seaside brutality, but I don't think there's much depth after that.

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby Deactivated Member » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:48 pm

Lawrence wrote:It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but a lot of people expect the peat 'punch' to increase with age.


I was lucky enough to try a dram of 40yo Bunnahabhainn from the days when they still peated their stuff. There was a really dry, smoky flavour - especially on the finish. If peat does diminish with age, I wonder what their young spirit must have been like in those days.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Admiral » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:57 am

I imagine it probably would not have varied too much from at least one of its neighbours.

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby PeatPirate » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:39 am

Hi all,

Something else about the Lagavulin 12. I read in tasting notes on a forum that the label of the Laga 12 says "drink 1 part laga 12 with 2 parts water". Seems a little too wet, isn't it? :-)

I drank it with just a little shot of water, and I loved it. Before that I tried it without water. That was a little bit of a rough experience, but still enjoyable.

I don't have the Laga 12 in my private collection, so I can try it at home. How do you drink your Laga 12? With or without water?

Grtz. PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby bamber » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:49 pm

No water. So smooth it doesn't need any softening up IMO. Wish I had a bottle open at the moment :(
User avatar
bamber
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

Postby Deactivated Member » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:10 pm

Distillers (and whisky shops) can sometimes have funny ideas about water. One well known distiller recommends drinking their standard bottling (normally 46%) with up to 150% :!: water and generous helpings of ice. They recommend diluting all their other wshiskies too, albeit with slightly less water. And whenever I am offered tasters in whisky shops - especially of cask strength whisky - they seem quite alarmed when I decline water. Am I really abnormal?
Deactivated Member
 

Postby hpulley » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:28 pm

You are not abnormal for a whisky afficianado but for most whisky drinkers, they take it with large amounts of water or ice like your standard tumbler half full of either water or ice with one or one and a half ounces of 40% ABV blended whisky in it. I'm surprised they can taste anything and that may be the point.

I am completely 100% off watering my whiskies unless I have such a sore throat that it actually burns on the way down in which case I probably shouldn't be drinking it anyhow...

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

Add water, makes it's own sauce ?

Postby PeatPirate » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Hi all,

I sometimes add 2 or 3 drops of water to "open up" the whisky. And I like to experiment with CS bottelings that I taste for the 1st time.

I think there are some whiskys that can use a bit of water, especially for the nose. When bottled at CS I think the nose is sometimes too alcoholic/closed. It's a pity if we don't smell the beauty of some whisky's because the alcohol is too dominantly present when sniffing.

There's only one whisky so far that tastes better with some water. The Glenfarclas 105 (which is as subjective as usual :-) )


Greetz PP
PeatPirate
New member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
Location: Arnhem, the Netherlands

Postby Lawrence » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:46 pm

To water or to not water, that's the question and as has been said before, it all depends on the person and the whisky, it's your own preference.
Lawrence
Matured cask
 
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Add water, makes it's own sauce ?

Postby Aidan » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:56 pm

PeatPirate wrote:I think there are some whiskys that can use a bit of water, especially for the nose. When bottled at CS I think the nose is sometimes too alcoholic/closed. It's a pity if we don't smell the beauty of some whisky's because the alcohol is too dominantly present when sniffing.


I believe blenders water whisky down to 15% and sniff it rather than taste it. That's what Noel Sweeney from Cooley does, anyway. Probably common practice. Was there something in whisky mag about this?
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Postby Deactivated Member » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:29 pm

The back label of Rare Malts bottles suggests whisky to water at 1:2. I say they're insane. After experimenting quite a lot in my early days, I now almost never use water, and the phrase "opening up" is a complete mystery to me. All I experience is dilution and weakening. Occasionally, a cask strength can stand a bit of watering, and, appropriately enough for this thread, the Lagavulin 25 I have recently opened is one of them. (I have now decided that I like this bottle so much, that I'm going to vote for it in the poll.)

Having said all this, I think it's time for me to make another round of watering experiments.
Deactivated Member
 

Postby Admiral » Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:03 am

I now almost never use water, and the phrase "opening up" is a complete mystery to me.


I agree wholeheartedly.

As I posted elsewhere, I recently had to wade my way through 13 SMWS samples to assess them and decide which ones were worth ordering for the Australian branch.

I was very careful to analyse each whisky, one at a time...nose, palate, finish, and then repeat the exercise after adding a few drops of water.

I can say with confidence that only one whisky appeared to improve with the addition of water. So a success rate of 1 in 13 is hardly inspiring!

I used to believe that a few drops of water would "open up a whisky" if its nose was tightly locked, but I'm not even sure of that anymore. Two of the SMWS malts had noses that were very locked and difficult to find or recognise any obvious descriptors. The addition of water only dulled the nose further and made my task harder.

Cheers,
Admiral
Admiral
Triple Gold Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Australia

Postby Aidan » Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:34 am

I deffinately think water opens up a whisky. I notice that most of the Islays give a little more smoke when water is added.

I think, and I could be wrong, that water changes the surface tension. It would also heat the whisky, via heat of dissolution. There are other ways of heating whisky, of course, and the net effect would be different according to the temperature of the water used.

Anyway, I think the only real change is to the nose.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin


Next

Return to Whisky Poll

Whisky gift and present finder