Discover Whisky

I remember, many years ago, trying Lagavulin a few weeks after finding Laphroaig too medicinal for my young palate, and quite liking it. However for some reason our paths have hardly ever crossed since then. Memory and changing tastes often play tricks so I was interested to see what my opinions of it would be now.

Lagavulin 16 year old, 43%

Colour

Deep amber

Nose

Oh, this is good. You can tell immediately. Warm, slightly salty.

Taste

Initial taste
Exactly like the nose, love at first sip. Brings to mind a warm summers day by the seashore with the grass warm under your feet. There’s a real feeling of mature quality; the fact that it’s older than the normal “standard” malts at 16 years old is very evident. It makes me wonder what the Laphroaig, which readers may remember I thought was not yet fully developed, would have been like at this age. I also wonder what the special 12 year old bottlings of Lagavulin will be like - I’ll definitely be finding out! Did I mention it was warm?

Later taste
The saltiness increases slightly, but not to excess as was threatened with the Bunnahabhain. A little caramel comes through, and increasing suggestions of sweet sherry. The sweet and the salty battle for supremacy but in the end they settle for parity in a balance that retains interest and vitality.

Finish

A strong distinctive finish that stays mostly at the front and sides of the tongue and lasts a long while.

Conclusion

This time the memory merely understated the quality - or the young tastebuds couldn’t yet appreciate it fully. I like this, a lot; better even than the Ardbeg and very close (though a rather different style) to the Caol Ila. It has something in common with Talisker in the rich complexity and saltiness. Perhaps a little more sherry and caramel than the Skye classic, perhaps not quite so many interwoven flavours, but very satisfying indeed. In my list of favourite standard single malts this has now taken a place in the top three - displacing Bowmore (which I’ll be reviewing next) and Highland Park - which is high praise indeed.

My only very slight concern is that any older versions might not be any better, as the sweet sherry flavours might take over, but I’ll happily try them out just in case!

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had been exposed to a mature Laphroaig at way too tender an age when my taste buds were incapable of appreciating it. Since then I’ve only rarely gone back to this revered Islay malt and never in a suitable environment where I could observe it in peace and quiet. Would it still be the rich complex malt that I dimly remembered and which scares many single malt drinkers away to smoother locations?

Laphroaig - 10 years old, 40%

Colour

Mid amber

Nose

Not as strong as I’d expected, slightly medicinal, a touch of iodine.

Taste

Initial taste impression
Rich, warm, peppery, dry-ish (though not as much as the Ardbeg).

Later impressions
Peat, not so much smoke, walnut. Not as complex as I’d expected nor as balanced as the Caol Ila.

First after-taste is long but not particularly distinctive. Later on a warmth at the back of the mouth is evident along with a taste reminiscent of chillies.

After a little water
The addition of even a small amount of water does nothing for this Laphroaig. There seems little in the way of aromatics released and it just tastes like weaker whisky.

Conclusion

To be honest I’m a little disappointed - I was expecting more of a challenge from this famous brand. It’s certainly not bad, indeed far better than many mainland drams (as long as you keep it well away from water!), but not in the class of the Caol Ila or the Ardbeg. Maybe I just got a poor sample - I’ll try ordering one next time I’m in a bar and see if there is any noticeable difference. However on the basis of this tasting I have the feeling that it needs to be stronger or older in order to fully blossom, so I’ll be interested to try one of the “specials” in later tastings.