Differences among Lagavulin Distiller's Editions?

by **Sherried Malt** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:34 pm

Following up on BCE22's thread in Tastings, are there any noticeable differences among the various vintages of this bottling?

I'm thinking about the many comments on this board about the change Macallan has gone through since the 70's, and wondered to what extent it might be true for the DE...

I've had the 1986 and 1987 versions and would be hard pressed to say there was a significant difference between them. However, my experience with this amazing SM is limited to just those two times...

Anyone tasted the 1989 yet?

by **Mr Ellen** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:31 pm

As this is one (in my opinion) of the best whiskies ever produced I have been a constant buyer and consumer of this malt since the first vintage 1979. I have tasted all of them (and I still have a bottle saved from each vintage) up to the recent 1989 edition and so far I haven't noticed any significant changes in taste or aroma.
For me the 1979 will always be regarded as the best but that depends completely on other circumstances.
Others may say different but I think this whisky has been very consistent through the years.

Cheers
________________
Anders

by **Sherried Malt** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:58 am

Anders, thanks for sharing the breadth of your experience! It's VERY helpful.

Also good to know that I don't have to run around and track down a specific year now!

Speaking of Distiller's Editions, have you tried the one by Talisker? I just bought one the other day...

by **Mr Ellen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:51 am

Sherried Malt wrote:Anders, thanks for sharing the breadth of your experience! It's VERY helpful.

Also good to know that I don't have to run around and track down a specific year now!

Speaking of Distiller's Editions, have you tried the one by Talisker? I just bought one the other day...

Yes, I have indeed. For the moment I have the 1986 and 1988 vintages.
I actually prefer the standard 10 year old to this one. Don't get me wrong, this is a fantastic malt but I believe the strong flavours that are so typical for Talisker are being somewhat concealed in the Distillers Edition. It's a bit more toffeeish and rounded than the 10y.
If you can get it, try to get a hold of the 18 year old. In my opinion the very best Talisker has produced and amongst the best whiskies overall.

Cheers
_____________________
Anders

by **Admiral** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:36 am

There is a noticeable difference between the earlier vintages and the latter ones.

1979 - 1981 were all pretty consistent, and - in my opinion - the best released. I have still have two bottles of the 1981 and I treasure these dearly.

By the time the 1986 rolled around, the final product was spending less time in the cask. I think I'm right in saying that when the '79-'81 bottlings came out, the whisky was actually 18 years old - roughly 16 years in the bourbon cask, then 2 years in the PX cask.

The more recent vintages are being bottled at 16 years old, and there is a noticeable difference in the flavour.

Don't get me wrong - the '86 and '87 are still very, very good whiskies. But I think the first releases were even better.

Cheers,
Admiral

by **kallaskander** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:26 am

Hi there,

hello Admiral I just started wondering if you were on a lengthy vacation. As to the Lagavulin DE bottlings I can only say that the '87 was the best I had. But I just plain missed the older ones so I can not really compare those to the latest ones. But the '87 is better than the '92 IMO.

Greetings to down under

kallaskander