Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Speakeasy' started by TimmyBoston, Apr 4, 2007.
The Laphroaig CS if finally up!
This one's for you, Bob!
Some of you may wonder why I said nearly all positive things about the CS and rated overall lower than many of the whiskies I've reviewed lately, I rated it lower because of whisky's simplicity and lack of complexity and modest, nearly singular flavor profile and only moderate balance, not because it isn't enjoyable, because it is quite tasty. This is also why I view Laphroaig 15 as a superior whisky than the 10 or the 10 CS because it is far more refined, complex and sophisticated than it's little brothers even if it is no more enjoyable than the others.
I have this whisky also. This is one upfront, in your face scotch compared to to more sherried whiskies I have had. I think Tim is right - the profile is pretty straightforward with lots of smoke and some iodine. It is not overly powerful for being high alcohol strength, and it is very enjoyable. I have not tried the other Laphroaig offerings to compare it with, so these are just my observations on owning the bottle.
I've got my eye out for this one Tim. Will definitely be picking it up when I come across it.
I had of bottle of this on my shelf for awhile. I couldn't get into the earthy sweat socks thing. I had a friend over one day to smoke some fine cigars and I thought the smokes would complement the whiskey. And it did indeed. Try this with a good cigar. It totally change my mind about this scotch.
Nice review. I'm a big fan of Laphroig.
For those just chomping at the bit to start a single malt acquisition disorder, though, you might not want to start with this scotch. Newbies tend to prefer the sherry casks to the real peaty scotches.
For me, this is the best Laphroaig bottling. It's not as sophisticated as some of the others, but I drink it without adding water and like the way it coats my palate. It has a finish that lasts forever.
Isn't that sort of like saying that Rafael Nadal is a better athlete than Michael Phelps because Phelps has no backhand?
The 'phroaig 10 is supposed to be unrefined - you need to judge a whisky for what it is, not for what something else is, IMNAAHO.
Comparing tennis players to swimmers isn't even in the ballpark of comparing Scotch with Scotch. Let alone Single Malt Scotch with Single Malt Scotch and going even further comparing it matching Laphroaig up against another Laphroaig is downright ludicrous.
Yes, there is some diversity within the Laphroaig's lineup, but to compare any two whiskies, you must evaluate and compare what they are, what they aren't and what they should be. If you only looked at exactly what a single product was and not what another is, we would have to eliminate all reviews and discussions here because nothing could be compared.
I do think you missed the point of the analogy; it wasn't that the two 'phroaigs are so different that they can't be compared, but rather that you need to judge things by their own ideal - you need to look at something by the benchmark of what it's supposed to be.
You can surely say that the 15 is a more refined scotch than the 10 - there's no disputing that. And refinedness is part of what makes a quality scotch - but it's not the be all and end all.
To say that the 10 (and I'm not taking a stand here either way right now) is an inferior scotch because it's not as refined, misses the point. It's not supposed to be refined. You need to compare a whisky against what it should be - and a more refined 10 would ruin the reason people drink it.
Things can still be compared - both against their ideals and against each other. But to say 'more refined = better' is to oversimplify and miss the complexity and nuance in scotch tasting, IMO.
Finished a bottle a year ago and bought a new one just a couple of weeks ago. This is definitely one of the best Laphroaigs a decent amount of money can buy.