Lagavulin Px finish artificially coloured?

by **Macallovich** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:40 am

Is it? E150? :roll:

by **karlejnar** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:50 am

My guess is no

I think the PX would give sufficient colour to it - it's slightly reddish not golden/brownish.

But then again my bottle is bought taxfree and doesn't mention E150 or "mit Farbstoff" anywhere on the labels or box.

by **kallaskander** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:35 pm

Hi there,

the 1989 edition the last that came out here does not carry the statement that it is coloured. So I would say no, it is not coloured.

Greetings
kallaskander

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:27 pm

That's interesting. I suppose that, since the DE's are released periodically as "vintages", they feel no particular need to standardize the color. Do you suppose that each vintage is a single vatting? I'd have to guess so.

by **kallaskander** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:46 pm

Hi there,

I would agree that the DEs are vattings of one special year and therefore a vintage. It would not make much sense to give a year and have a vatting of different distillation periods. If it were so what would the statement of a certain year mean? As to the colour I woul think that the PX Sherry gives enough colour and that there is no need for "Einheitliche Farbgebung", homogenisation of colours between the editions.

Greetings
kallaskander

by **Deactivated Member** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:34 pm

Well, just devil's advocating here, but you could certainly have more than one vatting in any given year. I doubt that's the case, though. And the possible use of coloring wouldn't be because there isn't sufficient color in the whisky, but to standardize it. Again, apparently not the case.