PC5

by **bond** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:08 am

How exactly did PC5 come about? Is there a reason why this whisky was bottled at such a young age?

Also, are there OBs of this whisky? If so, presumably they are from the Bruichladdich stable? I only have an Alchemist bottling.

Cheers,

Bond

by **les taylor** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:25 am

Hi Bond I thought I'd show a picture of the Port Charlotte OB. You will probably notice that this one has had the Angel's share already taken.
You can see Lord Jim on the tube.

by **Di Blasi** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:53 am

bond wrote:How exactly did PC5 come about? Is there a reason why this whisky was bottled at such a young age?

Also, are there OBs of this whisky? If so, presumably they are from the Bruichladdich stable? I only have an Alchemist bottling.

Cheers,

Bond

Hey Bond, how is that Alchemist Port Charlotte? I'm still waiting for it to get to Norway, and wondering if I should get one or not??

by **bond** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:16 am

The alchemist bottling is fairly good. High levels of peat as is to be expected. The balance is better than what I had expected from a whisky this young.

Any inputs on why this whisky was bottled so young?

by **r900p** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:11 pm

Bond

Aparantly the Alchemist is identical to PC5, i'm waiting for an alchemist to prove this through.

You can stillfind them on ebay but with considerable mark-up.

Rob

by **fishboy** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:20 pm

r900p wrote:Bond

Aparantly the Alchemist is identical to PC5, i'm waiting for an alchemist to prove this through.

You can stillfind them on ebay but with considerable mark-up.

Rob

According to Gordon Wright at Alchemist they are identical, except that the OB is bottled at cask strength (63.5%!!) whereas the Alchemist is bottled at 46%. Both unchillfiltered of course.

I asked Jim McEwan about the decision to bottle at 5 years old and he said "because it was ready". Who am I to argue with Lord Jim?
It'll be interesting to see how it continues to improve with age, roll on PC6, PC7 etc

Fishboy

by **Wave** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:17 pm

It'll be interesting to see how it continues to improve with age, roll on PC6, PC7 etc

Hopefully by then it'll have saturated the market enough so where even this poor Yank will be able to get a bottle of without having to part with an arm, a leg and my first born!

Cheers!

by **Di Blasi** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:37 pm

Good info folks, thanks!! Looking forward to its arrival to Norway then, it's already past due.

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:35 am

bond wrote:Any inputs on why this whisky was bottled so young?

Because it was ready?

Because it couldn't be bottled any older, 5yo being all there is?

Because there was an eager market ready to buy?

by **bond** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:37 am

fishboy wrote:
I asked Jim McEwan about the decision to bottle at 5 years old and he said "because it was ready". Who am I to argue with Lord Jim?
It'll be interesting to see how it continues to improve with age, roll on PC6, PC7 etc

Fishboy

For sure. Does seem ready. But is this the first distillate post Bruichladdich re-opening in 2001?

by **les taylor** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:02 am

bond wrote:
fishboy wrote:
I asked Jim McEwan about the decision to bottle at 5 years old and he said "because it was ready". Who am I to argue with Lord Jim?
It'll be interesting to see how it continues to improve with age, roll on PC6, PC7 etc

Fishboy

For sure. Does seem ready. But is this the first distillate post Bruichladdich re-opening in 2001?

Hi I Bond I beieve it is. That's why there was all the fuss about it when it was released last autumn.

by **Lawrence** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:24 pm

Also the new owners were excited to bottle a product that they had distilled and matured. And quite rightly so.

by **Deactivated Member** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Alchemist will be doing another bottling. So, orders to all the big name retailers

by **r900p** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:39 pm

eelbrook, any ideas as to this new bottling?

Rob

by **Paul A Jellis** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:06 am

PC5! Bugger I missed PC1, 2, 3, and 4!

by **Deactivated Member** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:57 am

Paul A Jellis wrote:PC5! Bugger I missed PC1, 2, 3, and 4!

Reminds me that when the play The Madness of George III was made into a movie, they changed the title to The Madness of King George, on the theory that American moviegoers wouldn't go see it because they hadn't seen The Madness of George I & II.

They went to Ocean's 11, though....

PC5

PC5

Re: PC5