Laphroaig 1998-2010 (BB&R)

Laphroaig 1998-2010 Berry Bros. & RuddAnother Laphroaig. Also from 1998 and bottled in 2010–not sure if it’s 11 or 12 years old as Berry Bros. & Rudd are always stingy with information on the label. Let’s get right to it:

Laphroaig 1998-2010 (58.9%, Berry Bros. & Rudd, ex-Bourbon cask #700254; from my own bottle)

Nose: Fruity peat (something musky–melon?); quite medicinal (bandages, disinfectant). Something meaty in there too–pork fat? Not smoky as much as ashy. With time, the nose gets more cereally, more limey. Water brings the fruit back and makes the nose pungent and intense again.

Palate: Viscous. Lime peel, musky fruit and then a huge wave of phenolic smoke. Gets ashy and salty at the end. Water makes the smoke leafy and acidic.

Finish: Long and ashy. Water makes the smoke more acidic and brings some of the fruit to the finish as well.

Comment: An interesting variation on the profile of the Malts of Scotland 1998 I reviewed a few weeks ago, and I think I like this one just a little bit better. It’s a little more phenolic and just a little bit more intense. Not as cereally though as the Malts of Scotland, which is something I really liked about that one.

Rating: 89 points.

Laphroaig 20, 1990 (The Whisky Agency)

Laphroaig 20 1990 TWA

I wish flowers actually smelled like this whisky.

There’s a lot of Laphroaig about in the world and this is a good thing. Generally more forthright and robust than most Caol Ilas, more various than Lagavulin (just the 12 yo cs, the iconic 16 yo and not an indie in sight), and always more not-eye-roll-inducing than Ardbeg, Laphroaig is my pick of the iconic Islay distilleries that are on a similar peaty continuum (Bowmore is a different kind of animal and Bruichladdich’s Port Charlotte and Octomore lines are not quite iconic yet–ditto for the very promising Kilchoman).

Of their official bottlings, the 25 yo is priced astronomically (and, from my very limited experience, doesn’t quite live up to the price tag), but everything below it is priced reasonably–though if you live in California you may beg to demur re the 18 yo (let me soothe you by noting that for almost two years it was available for $43 from a notorious store in Minneapolis, and is now up to $80 in the region). And there’s a lot of it available from independents–mostly 21 years and below (I don’t recall seeing any much older indie Laphroaigs in the last couple of years). So, if you like a good thing, and like having a lot of iterations of that good thing available to you, then Laphroaig is the good thing for you. It certainly is for me.
Continue reading

Laphroaig 13, 1998 (Malts of Scotland)

moslaphroaig
Laphroaig
is perhaps my favourite distillery (Highland Park and Bowmore are currently the other contenders) and it is not a distillery that needs much of an introduction to even the casual whisky drinker. Along with Lagavulin it is perhaps the most well-known of the Islay distilleries to the general drinking public, and, like Lagavulin, its reputation is also uniformly high among whisky geeks (unlike, say, the Macallan, which has high name-recognition among casual drinkers but is not rated as high by most whisky geeks). That reputation is for uncompromising peated whisky, mostly from bourbon casks. Unlike the third iconic south coast Islay purveyor of heavily peated whisky, Ardbeg (or Bruichladdich to the north), Laphroaig and Lagavulin do not engage in much marketing flim-flam or mad-scientist experimentation; and unlike Lagavulin (or the slightly less heavily peated Caol Ila), Laphroaig is not owned by the Evil Empire of Scotch Whisky, Diageo. (Though it must be noted that it is not as though Laphroaig is some quaint family-owned cottage distillery; it is part of the Jim Beam portfolio.) These things certainly help with the reputation; but most importantly, the whisky is usually very good. And there’s a lot of bottlings of the whisky out there–unlike Lagavulin and Ardbeg–which allows those who like it to try many iterations of it.

Continue reading