So my planned schedule for the second half of last week fell apart completely. What I’d failed to account for when I made those best-laid plans was that my new term and school year starts today and that while getting ready to write syllabi, meet with new advisees etc. I would suddenly receive some urgent and unmissable deadlines on a project I’ve been trying to bring to a close for a while (more on this later, if you don’t know what it is, or even if you do). The good news is I still have a booze review for you this week. The bad news is that it is a return to a whisky I have reviewed once before: a 9 yo Laphroaig bottled by the Scotch Malt Whisky Society under the name “What a Magnificent and Handsome Nose”.

My previous review was posted in late-February 2020 (just before you-know-what hit). That review was from a sample swap with someone whose identity I had failed to log in my spreadsheet. I’d noted then that I had a bottle of my own of the whisky (and that I had also failed to log where I’d acquired it from and for how much). Well, my memory is no better now but I am glad anyway to have opened the bottle; and I’m curious to see what I make of it now.

Laphroaig 9, 2001 (60.9%; SMWS 29.88 “What a Magnificent and Handsome Nose”; refill sherry butt; from my own bottle)

Nose: Pencil lead, raisins and a big whack of phenolic smoke. As it sits there’s ink and a meaty note under it. Not too much change with time. With a splash of water the smoke moves in the direction of char and damp coals and some unexpected vanilla emerges as well.

Palate:  Comes in as advertised but with some citrus added (somewhere between lime and orange). Quite hot, unsurprisingly, at full strength; rich texture. Sweeter as it goes. Okay, let’s add some water. Yes, much more approachable now but also much sweeter; and the smoke is less phenolic.

Finish: Long. The smoke moves from phenolic to charred as it goes and then there’s some sweet pipe tobacco. As on the palate with water but then some bitter char returns at the end.

Comments: I did not read my earlier notes before jotting these down. Comparing now, I see many of the same things but not always in the same order. I also see that I described it then as being “surprisingly approachable at full strength”, which is not what I thought of this pour. That would suggest that sample was from a bottle that had been open for a while. That might also explain some of the softer notes I got then that I did not get now. Well, hopefully that means all of that will happen with this bottle as well, as I didn’t like this quite as much as I had on that occasion—which is not to say that I don’t think it’s very good, for I do!

Rating: 88 points.