UKC

I'm looking for a nice whisky as a present for my brother before his wedding. Unfortunately I don't know much about whisky. Hoping there are some experts on here who can help...?

Knowing my brother's tastes, something peaty and strong (so perhaps an Islay?) Budget around £100.

Any pointers welcome.
Thanks

In reply to t_hume:
Smokiest whisky I have ever tried was Octomore from the Bruichladdich distillery. Might put you back more than £100 for the bottle though.

In reply to t_hume:

If he likes peaty, smokey and Islay, you can't go wrong with a bottle of Lagavulin. Approx £50. Get him 2 bottles..

In reply to t_hume:
For peaty/smokey single malts, all the Islay single malts are good

Otherwise Talisker from Skye

You should be able to get a good single malt from a supermarket for around £30 - £40 - maybe even less if it's on offer, so as someone else has said for £100 you could get him a couple of different bottles or maybe even 3.

It's not worth paying £100 for a single bottle. It really isn't any better than a standard 10 or 12 year single malt. Once matured at 10 or 12 years, keeping it longer doesn't improve the taste or quality any more.

The extra cost is for fancy packaging and conning the wealthy American market into thinking they are buying something extra special and unique (ie unique by price! )

In reply to mac fae stirling:

a fine suggestion. 16 year old Lagavulin is around £50 and a lovely dram.

Bruichladdich Octomore is a good shout. You should be able to get Octomore 6.1 or 7.1 for around £100 if you shop around.

Ardbeg Corryvreckan and Uigeadail are lovely and both around £60 a bottle.

In reply to t_hume:

If it's for a special occasion check out Cadenheads or Gordon and MacPhail online. G and M do an exclusive range which are single cask ie it's a one off and will be limited to a couple hundred bottles. Unfortunately only available in their shop in Elgin. Cadenheads will possibly do something similar.

I'm currently drinking a G and M Connoseurs Choice Caol Isla. Bloody great

In reply to t_hume:

If he likes peaty and strong, you can't go wrong with Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength or Lagavulin 12 also cask strength. Both excellent and go for around £70-80.

The standard Lagavulin 16 goes at around £50 and is good but is watered down to 43%.

I completely disagree with Trangia about older whisky and/or bottles over £30-40 not being worth it. Sometimes they really are.

Someone above mentioned independent bottlers including Cadenhead's. I second that recommendation. Google whiskytastingroom, they are releasing some new single cask bottlings later this week, all cask strength, including a 15yo Bowmore

In reply to James B:

I agree with your point about paying a bit more. It can definitely be worth it . To the OP, the Scapa Orcadian is a beautiful 16 year old Orkney malt. Worth every penny of the £60 odd price tag.

In reply to t_hume:

The Bruichladdie Port Charlotte is a lovely peated whisky.

In reply to t_hume:

Agree with Andrew23 about Bruichladdich's Port Charlotte, their PC11 and PC12 are both cask strength and heavily peated.

If you want to get geeky about your research, check out average ratings on Whiskybase for a whisky. Of course it comes down to personal taste, but if plenty of people have voted and the average rating is ~87+ you've got a good indication that the whisky's well above average.

In reply to James B:
www.masterofmalt.com

Have a wee browse.

In reply to t_hume:

Thanks for all the advice folks.
Sure I can find something amongst those suggestions.

Thanks
Tom

In reply to Gone for good:

How about a bottle of cheapish Scapa and an plane ticket to go and pick it up himself.

In reply to t_hume:
+ 1 for Ardbeg, one of my favorites.

www.ardbeg.com/shop/product/ardbeg-corryvreckan.html

In reply to t_hume:

I've always found this works quite well-
http://www.glenfarclas.co.uk/en/pages/78,105-Cask-Strength.html

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

That's exactly what I was thinking. The modern versions of Caol Isla have gone to the dark side as they include caramel .. the death of good scotch.... my second choice would be the two Ardbegs also recommended above (but there is a pricier version I've never tasted (Auriverdes).

In reply to Trangia:



The words of somebody who's never drunk a really good whisky. Probably best to keep it that way. It'll only get expensive otherwise...

In reply to Offwidth:

Nah, the Auriverdes is a limited release thing (same as the Perpetuum and the Ardbog and various others before them). Maybe of interest to collectors and massive Ardbeg fans, but you will almost certainly get more bang for your buck with the Corryvreckan or (my recommendation) the Uigeadail.

Independent bottlings are a bit more hit and miss. When you get a good one they can be brilliant, and really good value for money. But they're not all good.

In reply to Offwidth:

Bah, ruddy caramel. Criminal so it is.

All this whisky talk's gonna have me reaching for a bottle shortly.

In reply to t_hume:
I haven't bought any special whisky for a while, so can't offer specific suggestions. But I reckon there's more to buying a really nice bottle as a present that how it tastes. When you pay more, you're buying something rare - a drink that very few people have ever and will ever taste. It's interesting, it has character, and of course it should be lovely, but what you're really paying for is exclusivity and the feeling that gives you and the recipient.

So for this type of present, if your budget is about 100 quid, I'd spend enough on the whisky to get something quite exclusive that will be savoured and remembered - which might be 50-60 quid - and either spend the rest on yourself or get a tumbler or something with it. The margin between a 30 and 60 quid bottle is big (it takes you from supermarket to exclusive/fancy, although you might not prefer the taste of the latter), but the additional 40 you might spend on the bottle after that is IMO evaporating into thin air, unless you're a whisky buff wanting something very specific.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd agree entirely with that as someone who has sampled lots of 100+ whiskeys (rich chinese pals)... I've tried to wheen them onto the better value and taste of the single malt 15 year olds and popular specials like Uigeidail and why anything with caramel is to be avoided. Whisky isn't like Brandy or wine when things do tend to improve with price (but still nothing like as much as makes the expensive ones worth it IMHO). Really good whisky is also still very cheap compared to really good brandy.

In reply to James B:

I can't say I agree that it's worth spending £70 on a 10yr old Laphroaig - cask strength (unless you are a masochist and take it neat) needs more water, not nice Islay peaty water but treated tap water. (unless you filter etc.)

Better getting a Quarter Cask IMO. Although, it's only £40 so you could probably splash out a little more.

My dad and I always were found of the Laphroaig 15yr old, but have yet to try the 18. We had a bottle of 30yr old once, both decided it was not worth the extra over Quart Cask/15yr old.

Reading this: https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/laphroaig-18-year-old-whisky/

...makes me want a bottle

In reply to Trangia:


Not quite - Bruichladdich, whilst good, isn't peaty.


You've been criticised for saying this, but the truth is it depends who's drinking it.

Different people have quite different sensitivities to tastes and smells, and some people will savour (or hate) components and depths to something which another person won't even detect.

As someone with virtually no sense of smell, I can really appreciate a good peaty malt (and have much less interest in those with less forceful flavours), but I often won't notice the small variations between different expressions.

So, for me (and for many others), there's every chance a £200 bottle will be no better than a £60 one, but that doesn't mean it won't be much better to someone who can appreciate it properly.

That said, if going for a special present, it's almost certainly best to go a step up from the standard, £30-£40 expressions - you can get something that, if not actually better, is as good but also a bit different.

I recently finished a wonderful bottle of this: https://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-107.aspx which my wife bought me for about £50 some years ago. It isn't better than Ardbeg 10 year old, but it's delicious and not like anything else. I see it's a bit over budget now, though!

In reply to t_hume:
Membership of the scotch malt whisky society. Tis great!

Or a bottle from his year of birth (Google search for the main auctioneers and websites).

In reply to t_hume:

I'm going to recommend Bunnahabhain Cruach-Mhona, comes in 100cl too. Otherwise perhaps something from Elements of Islay, but that only comes in 50cl. Also agree with those suggesting independent bottlings of single casks.

In reply to skog:

Well pretty much all the expert tasters seem to be down on expensive bottles (except maybe limited edition rare stuff), so it not just Jon and I.

In reply to Offwidth:

Expert tasters are almost inevitably going to be amongst those who -can- taste and smell the fine nuances, though, aren't they?

Their experiences aren't going to be the same as those of many (most?) people, much as adding beautiful, complex overtures in ultrasound won't change most people's enjoyment of classical music.

It obviously isn't just Jon and you, I'm sure it's quite real, but lots of people just aren't going to notice it.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've misunderstood your 'down on', haven't I?!

In reply to Offwidth:

The expense isn't always about the taste, there's the hype to consider.

The OP is looking for a gift for his brothers wedding. His brother may know nothing about whisky but if he sees his wedding gift on a supermarket shelf it isn't going to look special.

My cousin wanted to take a bottle of whisky back to the US for a friend. He was well chuffed when we went into G and M in Elgin and bought a single cask bottle from their exclusive range. Not available through import or anywhere else in the UK. The exclusivity is what makes it special. And a steal at £55.

In reply to Offwidth:


That's a sweeping statement! I agree most whisky geeks are down on some bottles - this young No Age Statement whisky being a good example: http://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2015/10/bowmore-releases-third-and-final-... In fact, some pricing shows naked greed by distillery owners, IMO.)

That said, PLENTY of older whiskies- and well-matured younger whiskies - are both expensive and stunningly good. Aging can add complexity, but costs money, and older whisky tends to be rarer. Whether those whiskies represent good value for money or not is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

In reply to t_hume:

What's this story about added caramel? I'd have thought it was normal in American bourbons but Scotch whiskies.... what a shocker.

In reply to t_hume:

Ive had a couple of bottles of kilchoman. Relatively new player from islay. Certainly be getting a few more. Islay peaty and smokey character with a touch of harshness (due to age?). One of favouites coupled with a cask strength caol isla from g and m.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Yes it's added by most distillers a. to harmonise the appearance of batches of whisky, because producers think consumers would be turned off if they see the colour changing between one bottle of their favourite whisky and the next, and b. because some companies still believe people think darker whisky means better whisky.

The latter consideration is also supposed to explain why a lot of Islay distillers (e.g Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Caol Ila) historically chose to use dark green or green/brown bottles, because Islay whisky tends to be naturally lighter in colour.

In reply to James B:


My insider info tells me that's not correct for single malts. Only for blends.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Lots of malt whisky has caramel in it. In Sweden and Germany the companies have to say whether they do, on the label, and based on this, the following are known to have caramel (or not):

Aberlour 10 YO no
Ardbeg Ten no
Auchentoshan 10 YO yes
Balvenie 10 YO no
Bowmore 12 YO yes
Bowmore Darkest no
Bunnahabhain 12 YO no
Cragganmore 12 YO yes
Dalwhinnie 15 YO yes
Drumguish yes
The Famous Grouse yes
General 12 YO yes
Glen Grant no
Glen Moray 12 YO no
Glenandrew 10 YO yes
Glenfarclas 10 YO no
Glenfiddich 12 YO yes
Glengoyne 10 YO no
The Glenlivet 12 YO no
Glenmorangie 10 YO no
Highland Park 12 YO no
Isle of Jura 10 YO yes
Lagavulin 16 YO yes
Laphroaig 10 YO no
The Macallan 12 YO no
Oban yes
Talisker 10 YO yes

Some distilleries (e.g. Laphroaig) add it to some bottlings and not others.
(From www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread107768.html)

Discussed further at

http://www.dramming.com/2012/02/16/caramel-in-whisky-demystifying-a-demon/

http://whiskyscience.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/caramel-e150.html

http://www.maltmaniacs.net/2013/03/07/e-pistle-1701-the-colour-of-whisky/

In reply to t_hume:

not really smoky, but I recently tried this

http://www.bruichladdich.com/the-whisky/bruichladdich/bere-barley-2008

and really enjoyed it. not bog standard, but not stupidly expensive either and relatively unusual so maybe good for a gift? I normally prefer smoky malts, but really enjoyed the above. A bit gimmicky maybe, but interesting nonetheless.

Stu

In reply to ellis:

I've been working my way through a litre of the Cruach-Mona for the past year courtesy of duty-free. Non-chill filtered and caramel free.

I've just poured myself one now thaks to you! A lovely peaty dram it is.

In reply to James B:

Can only access the middle link, others blocked by BT parental block (!!!!!).

I'll need to go back to my source and challenge his supposed knowledge.

In reply to t_hume:

Interestingly, I recall a study by one reliably anti-caramel / anti-chill filtering / anti-NAS whisky tasting blog where they made their own blends and looked at the effect of adding caramel. As I recall, they found, despite their own prejudices, that it helped integrate the blends - the ones they made without caramel were a "sum of parts" rather than the more harmonious whole with caramel; although, that was at the cost of a slight dulling particular notes.

Also, IIRC, bourbon is even less likely than single malts to contain caramel. The rules on "straight bourbon production" are far more restrictive than the malt / scotch whisky equivalents - barrel entry proof, mash mill, years of aging, only newly charred barrels are all strictly specified. Caramel is not allowed, and not needed so much as there is no mixing with grain whisky as in blended scotch. To my mind, bourbon is often great value - the strict laws of its production mean even "bottom shelf" bourbons (the basic Evan Williams, Buffalo Trace, Bulleit) can be really tasty. Pay a bit more (£35-60) for the likes of Bookers, Wild Turkey 101, Elijah Craig (especially the barrel proof), Evan Willams Single Barrel and you are getting something top quality.

Canadian whisky is a different story though - up to 9% additives allowed (and it can be almost anything - grain alcohol, rum etc).

In reply to t_hume:

Loads of things like this

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/85/c3/d7/85c3d767e10062d773f58281...

If you google Whisky Chart

In reply to James B:

As an aside one of the best bottles of malt I ever drank was a Rosebank. It was so lightly coloured that depending on the light it could've passed for vodka.

In reply to James B:


That's a bit odd?

Glendronach also use caramel btw.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Not necessarily. The Darkest is probably already quite dark from the sherry butts, so doesn't 'need' any caramel adding to darken it, whereas the 12yo would probably be quite light otherwise.

In reply to James B:
I'm aware I was making a sweeping statement but one backed by pretty good evidence. If these special aged whiskys (Glen Fiddich being one of the worst offenders) were any good they would at least be consistently matching the 16/18 yr results when in fact nearly all are rated lower. That means they are first and foremost designer labes not a high quality whisky in my view. I don't mind this as it feeds demand from rich idiots and keeps the price of the basic product down.

There is a lot of stuff thats been changed to meet average customer tastes over the years, not just adding caramel, since the 80s for example: bog standard Talisker has become less peaty; bog standard Laphroig has had its medicinal character toned down; Edrador used to have a luscious cream soda flavour now almost gone. It is worth paying high prices for old bottles of these. Ditto for some whiskys that have gone (Campbeltown being the biggest area of losses). Ditto sometimes when an old cask is found.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've found the opposite with Laphroig. I'm not a fan of it's TCP flavour but I tried an older 10 year old recently and it was far less phenolic than it's modern counterpart.

In reply to t_hume:

Yup, I'm with Mac on this one. Lagavulin would be the one to go for; more or less liquid peat. It used to be my favourite in younger days, but my tastes have changed a bit and I prefer something a bit more delicate now. My dram of the moment is Knockando, a Speyside single malt.

But it sounds like Lagavulin would be the one for yer man.

In reply to nathan79:
Weird... are you sure it wasn't an old but previously long opened bottle...in the last decade we've gone through at least two bottles a year as its often the best buy of the 10 year olds we like and its one of the most reliably available peaty malt in pubs and recently it seems really uniform to us and much tamer than it was...I tried it first in about 1981 and it was my favorite... (pipping the more peaty Talisker of the 80s, until I discovered Ardbeg and Caol Isla)... in the early days it seemed way more medicinal and cabbagy... no one else noted this change?

In reply to nathan79:

"I'm not a fan of it's TCP flavour"

That made me laugh...all whisky tastes like TCP to me. Never liked it. I sometimes wonder if a really good whisky would be enjoyable to a philistine like me. I doubt it, as I tend to recoil at anything that tastes really alcoholic. All the more whisky for you lads to enjoy

In reply to t_hume:

Herewith your chance to get definitive answers!

http://telegraphevents.co.uk/the-telegraph-whisky-experience/

Unfortunately the Master Class will only leave you sufficient change to buy him a single shot (if that)!