Diving for Pearls in 2017

Hi. I am the creator.

Of Diving for Pearls. I write the posts and attempt to keep The Big Whisk(e)y list up to date. Sometimes I add things to the right side of the page. Sadly, if you're reading this on a mobile device, you can't see the right side of the page, which is a shame because it's amazing.

I live in Ohio. I used to live in Los Angeles County. My wife supports this blog and represents 25% of my readership. My daughter just graduated into pull-up diapers and threenager-dom. I'm doing some freelance work that's keeping me very busy right now, but will likely dry up just when it's getting good. Is this the face of an optimist?

This Blog

When I started this blog in 2007, I wrote about film, music and my personal life. In 2011, I went from being a whisky enthusiast to a full-on fanatic. Gradually, whisky-themed posts took over the entire blog. By 2013, my natural cynical tendency, which had slipped into the occasional post, had spread like a little drop of ink in a glass of water until it tinted every whisky thing I wrote.

In January 2015, I posted a three-part series entitled What Was the Scotch Boom, using public data supplied by the Scotch Whisky Association to illustrate the industry's financial reality and expose some of the myths in their narratives. Those posts garnered more reads in five days than I usually get in two months. In January 2016, I wrote a three-part follow-up called Scotch Ain't Dead Yet, updating the previous year's stats and charts, and re-examining the narratives. Again, readers seem to have enjoyed it.

My plan was to continue these studies, but the Scotch Whisky Association still hasn't released the data for 2015. If they do, then I will happily write another set of posts studying scotch whisky sales, volumes and prices. If they don't, well, I'll figure out something.

2017

So what about now? I spend an increasing percentage of my casual (read: note-free) alcoholic beverage indulgence sipping on drinks other than whisky. Taking beer and wine into consideration, non-whisk(e)y things make up almost half of my alcoholic drinks.

You will have noticed that an increasing contingent of excellent whisky bloggers have begun to mix in reviews of other aged spirits with their whisky posts. That's awesome, and I hope more whisky bloggers follow in their footsteps. As of this moment, I will not be joining them. I'm not prepared to pontificate on things I don't thoroughly know about. Yes, that puts me at odds with the raison d'être of the Internet.

But I'm having fun learning about non-whisky drinks and enjoying not having to consider their purpose in the cosmos. I also feel like I have a different palate than other whisky-bloggers-who-write-about-brandies-and-rums when it comes to other drinks. And I'm figuring out where to go with that.

My apologies for bombarding this site with Ardbeg reviews for the past two weeks. I had cleared my calendar space to write about the industry's financial condition. When the numbers didn't come out, I found inspiration in the Ardbeg Ten I'd just bought on sale. It was not particularly great whisky and my accumulation of Ardbeg samples had begun to get out of control. Thus all those reviews.

Bourbon and Rye Day Friday will start up again in a couple weeks. If I do choose to review non-whisky drinks, they will get their own day of the week as well so that you, the reader, will know which day to skip. I hope to do larger thinkpieces once a month (or two) about capital 'W' Whisky and small 'e' enthusiasts. And I look forward to visiting a number of American distilleries and then sharing with you what I've learned.

Not Booze

I have started and abandoned dozens of album reviews as if they were novels. Not so much with film reviews. In fact, I don't know how parents of young children get to watch any films at all. I don't watch television, and I think American politics is doing well enough publicly commenting on itself without the need for me to add to it.

My daughter and my work are the center of my life. The latter I complete anonymously, so I can't really get into it here, yet. I've chosen to tone down the frequency of posts about the former, for privacy purposes. When I do write about parenthood, it's a spur of the moment illustration of my failures (manifold!) and my successes (exiguous!). I've also reduced the amount of photos I've shared because she is her own person now (is she ever) and I'd like to protect her right to privacy. Parents who pummel social media with photos of their kids every day give me a weird feeling inside. I ponder the real purpose behind those posts, and I wonder who looks at those pictures outside of the intended audience.

Today, I'll just include this image of Emily Prime,
the star of The World of Tomorrow

Still, I will celebrate my daughter here on her birthday. And I should probably laud my young wife on hers. And goodness knows, this blog is a party on my birthday week.

To conclude

I wish everyone a happy and healthy 2017. If you're an American, please be careful about the quantity of alcohol you consume over the next four years. If you're from China, welcome! Drink single grain whisky! It's so much better than single malt whisky! If you're from another excellent country, thank you for reading my blog posts. How easy is it for a family of three to get citizenship?

As the kids in China say, 886.

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg Supernova (2015 release)

I've written about the 2008 and 2010 Supernovas. But this is my first time doing a proper tasting with a full sample. In the past, I've enjoyed the other Superpeater, Octomore, more. While Supernova presents its peat in a full frontal assault, Octomore feels more layered, more complex and (most importantly) more delicious. That's not to say the Supernovas are crap. I've found them to be solid B-grade stuff. Its wall of peat is difficult to scale, but once one does there's not much else to find. BUT lemme see what happens with this (alleged) final edition of the 100ppm-peated Supernova.

Distillery: Ardbeg
Ownership: Glenmorangie Plc (owned by LVMH)
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Product: Supernova
Age: NAS
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels?
Limited bottling: ????
Bottling year: 2015
Alcohol by Volume: 54.3%
Chillfiltered? No
Color added? No
(Thank you to Aaron of It's Just the Booze Dancing for this sample!)

NEAT
The nose starts off with a massive note of smoked fish and vodka. It needs some time to air out... ... ... now there's coal, rubber and leather. Burnt peat. Seaweed. A little bit of pear in the background. The palate is all peat, heat and sweet. Brown sugar, marshmallows and vanilla simple syrup. Slight tanginess around the edges. More vanilla, heat, sweet and peat in the finish.

I think this stuff needs some help...

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
Less fish and vodka in the nose now, though otherwise similar to the neat version. The peat reads cleaner. A welcome arrival of anise and lemon. The palate grows sweeter, but with some chili oil in there to give it some dimension. Less smoky, more toasty. A mellow citrus note floats up. The finish is flat out cloying at first. With time, peat smoke and minerals join the lime candy.

Maybe some more water?

WITH WATER (~40%abv)
Much different nose. Peated kirsch? Grainy. Slight cap gun sulphur note. Peppery peat in the palate. Limes, minerals, dried herbs and jalapeños. The finish is much less sweet. Lots of limes and peppercorns and herbs.

COMMENTARY
What an odd duck. I really don't like it in its neat form, though it's difficult to pinpoint what's technically wrong with it. I guess the palate is boring and the nose is flat (aside from the unwelcome vodka note). Things improve considerably as more and more water is added. Though the nose never does it for me, the palate shines at 40%abv. I guess there's never even a suggestion of the complexity that's found in Octomore. And, at the price the Supernova goes/went for, one should expect at least something unusual or unique.

I recognize I'm in the minority on this one. The Jug gave it an 88. This person, this person and this person love it, giving it scores from 88 to 95. Its whiskybase scores are super high. Whisky Advocate declared it the 2015 Islay of the year, though their declarations have a questionable history. Curiously, Drinkhacker, who generously dishes out A grades, gave it only a B. I'm just curious, did any of these folks tried it alongside other Ardbegs, as I did? Or how many of these people waited until the hype died down to give it a sniff? Or maybe I'm alone in hoping that the end of Supernova marks the beginning of something better.

Availability - a few dozen retailers worldwide, the secondary market
Pricing - $175-$450
Rating - 81 (with water, lower score when neat)

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg Ardbog

After the Day special release, Ardbeg belched out Ardbeg Galileo. That's when the seeds of doubt started to slip in. The odd marketing manure was offputting, and the whisky was worse. Then Ardbeg Ardbog came out. By that point, I was ignoring their marketing emails and tales. I just wanted to try the whisky. But the company thought a Los Angeles-area visit was unnecessary for Ardbeg Day. There really aren't a lot of drinkers in LA, nor vacuous spendy showoffs, nor irresponsible fools. As Spinal Tap's manager said about Boston, it's not a big college town.

I can thank Andy Smith and Peatin' Meetin' 2013 for a chance to drink Ardbog. Later on, I had more opportunities to try again and again, as friends shared their bottles over time. My reaction remained the same as it was during the Meetin': Pretty good actually, just not $100 good.

Distillery: Ardbeg
Ownership: Glenmorangie Plc (owned by LVMH)
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Product: Ardbog
Age: allegedly 10 years old
Maturation: 60% ex-bourbon casks and 40% ex-manzanilla sherry butts
Limited bottling: 13,000
Bottling year: 2013
Alcohol by Volume: 52.1%
Chillfiltered? No
Color added? No
(Thanks to Whisky Brett P. for most of the samples this week!!!)

NEAT
It's the color of brass in a dark room. I don't know. It's gold-ish? There's a light tar note on the nose, along with prunes, black raisins and ginger beer. A sticky jammy note that rings more PX than manzanilla. Barbecue sauce and walnuts. Oddly, an old bourbon note sits right in the middle. Old American oak, maybe? The palate is sherried, inky and tarry. Some sweet berry compote and mint jelly. There's a little bit of dryness around the edges: oak tannins? Some of the compote remains through the finish, though it's less sweet than the palate. Zesty tart lemons and fresh ginger.

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
Black licorice, pruney sherry, wool, walnuts and faint wood smoke on the nose. The palate is smokier and more acidic, with a tingly bitterness. Almond paste and black raisins. The finish is bitterer, with mild peat, menthol and prunes.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
I was expecting my opinion to have changed. I was expecting to like Ardbog more. It's still just fine, which is technically less than "pretty good actually".

The bourbon note threw me off. Was my sniffer out of whack? Luckily Mr. Whiskyfun found something similar: vanilla, sawdust and new active oak. I don't mind it. In fact it gives the nose an additional layer. But nothing else really stands out. I would have preferred drier manzanilla-esque sherry than the stuff that actually showed. Overall, the whisky is fine. I'd recommend the regular range over Ardbog.

Availability - several dozen retailers in the US and Europe; the secondary market
Pricing - $100-$300
Rating - 84

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg Day

And this was right about when I got on the Ardbeg Train. I had experienced better-than-current-era Corryvreckan and Uigeadail about a half year before I attended my first Ardbeg Day event, in 2012, and was totally sold on the Ardbeg brand. At that Ardbeg Day event, the reps revealed the new Ardbeg limited release called......Ardbeg Day. I liked the whisky a lot, but when trying it next to Corry and Oogy, it landed in third place. The special releases were all downhill from there.

Distillery: Ardbeg
Ownership: Glenmorangie Plc (owned by LVMH)
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Product: Day
Age: NAS
Maturation: two different vintage (or "styles") first aged in ex-bourbon casks, then married together in ex-Uigeadail casks for 6 months
Limited bottling: 12,000
Bottling year: 2012
Alcohol by Volume: 56.7%
Chillfiltered? No
Color added? No
(Thanks to Whisky Brett P. for most of the samples this week!!!)

NEAT
The nose starts with loads of fruit and honey. Apricots and golden raisins. A floral peat (reminiscent of well-aged Longrow), then ocean-salty peat. Soil. Chocolate, dark berries, clay and baklava with honey. The palate holds dried apricots and roses. Very salty peat and smoked pork. Ethyl heat, a nice bitter bite and a slight industrial element. Its big warm finish is fruity sweet, with eucalyptus, salt and mothballs.

WITH WATER (~46%abv)
The nose is more herbal and milk chocolatey. Hints of tar and floral peat. Lots of fresh plum and apricot. It gets smokier with time. There's bigger peat on the palate. Dark chocolate with dried raspberries. A mild honey sweetness and a hint of peppery mints leaves. It finishes with dark smoldering peat. Salt, sweet, soot and a great sharp edge.

This is getting fun. A little more water, perhaps?

WITH WATER (~40%abv)
The nose keeps getting smokier and smokier. Bye bye fruits. Hello bus exhaust. Big bitter herbal smoke on the palate. Salt, lemons and a tiny bit of sugar. The finish is a little sweeter, with some wood smoke.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Though I regularly tweak Lumsden and his blending teams, I must commend them on their good work here, because this is excellent whisky, a special release that's actually special. It's much fruitier and prettier than the regular range. The palate is straightforward, while the nose is complex. The whisky takes to water very well, gradually becoming more recognizable as modern Ardbeg as it's diluted. It didn't rock my world five years ago because I just wanted nuclear peat back then, and Day's subtlety was wasted on me. Man, I wish I bought a bottle then. I would have appreciated it more now.

Availability - Secondary market
Pricing - $300-$500, holy craps
Rating - 89

Single Malt Report: Ardbeg Blasda

Yesterday was Ardbegish Serendipity. Today it's Ardbeg Blasda. Both appear, on the surface, to be Ardbeg Lite, less peat, more diluted and filtered.

I don't think Blasda sold particularly well. Though it was released between 2008 and 2010, I remember seeing bottles still selling at their original price in 2012. And it's still pretty easy to find in Europe, though at a premium price. Regarding the peat measurement, I've read two takes: the barley was peated at 8ppm; or the whisky in the bottle is peated at 8ppm. Those are very different things. 8ppm in the bottle isn't that low. As noted by Serge, that might be close to Bowmore's levels.

One final thought. Seven to ten years ago, whisky fans were openly grumpy about Serendipity and Blasda. Why isn't anyone, other than two or three dickish bloggers, publicly taking Dr. Bill to task for his crummy releases now?

This pic is even better than yesterday's.

Distillery: Ardbeg
Ownership: Glenmorangie Plc (owned by LVMH)
Type: Single Malt
Region: Islay
Product: Blasda
Age: NAS, natch
Maturation: Whiskybase says sherry hogsheads, but I have a difficult time believing that
Limited bottling: 18,000
Bottling years: 2008-2010
Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Yes
Color added? ???
(Thanks to Whisky Brett P. for most of the samples this week!!!)

Its color is a very light amber. A good sign. It has a peaty perky nose, much brighter and friendlier than regular current-era Ardbeg. Lots of young stuff, like green grass, cinnamon and estery fruits (or is that fruity esters?). White gummi bears, honey and ash. Hints of farm and leather; thus the cow, before and after. The palate leads with vanilla, confectioner's sugar and milk chocolate. Sweet and malty. Lime juice and earthy peat. A good tartness and a slight plastic note. An easy drink that's a bit thin at times. It finishes with a touch of prickly ethyl heat. Vanilla, sugar, grains and lime. Hints of smoke and salt.

WORDS WORDS WORDS
Blasda is better than its reputation. I mean it's REALLY young, but it's okay. There's plenty of peat but it's reserved enough so the rest of the spirit's characteristics don't have to fight for scraps. It's a shame this one got trampled on, while a number of lesser special releases (that were sold at higher prices) were celebrated.

There is room in Ardbeg's range for something like the Blasda, though maybe a little stronger and unfiltered. And probably older. I wonder if Lumsden totally gave up on this stuff. Or is he going to have the last laugh next decade when he drops the Blasda 21yo and it's genuinely gorgeous?

Availability - the secondary marketplace, and a few dozen European retailers
Pricing - $140-$240
Rating - 82

Single Malt Report: Serendipity (Ardbeg + Glen Moray) 12 year old Blended Malt

Okay, I have a week full of Ardbeg "special" edition things to review. In order to have the time to complete it all, I'm going to try to keep the posts shorter. That never works.

If you thought Wild Turkey Forgiven was the first of the "Oops, look at what we did. We're so stupid, we shouldn't be responsible for making widely sold commodities. But here, you should buy it for more than our purposely made products" type of whiskies, then you'd be wrong. Back in 2005, Ardbeg released Serendipity, their "Oops, you got your mayonnaise in my peanut butter" whisky.

Apparently they accidentally mixed old Ardbeg (stories range from 17yrs to 24yrs old) with 12 year old Glen Moray. 80% Ardbeg and 20% Glen Moray, is their story. And there was enough Oops for 16,000 bottles. Bottled at 40%abv.

Of course the same company accidentally did something similar with the exact same accidental ratio of 80:20, a few years earlier. Wondering why the hell they'd make Serendipity on purpose and thus dispose of so much old Ardbeg? It's not impossible that Ardbeg had a lot of underproof casks which needed to find a home. At its original price, the full Serendipity release grossed nearly one million dollars. So I'd say those Oops casks found a financially viable residence.

Crap. I said I'd keep it short.

Great picture, bro.

Thing: Serendipity
Company: Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy

Type: Blended Malt Whisky

Distilleries: 80% Ardbeg, 20% Glen Moray

Age: 17-24 year old Ardbeg and 12 year old Glen Moray, thus it's a 12 year old whisky
Maturation: ???
Limited bottling: 16,000

Alcohol by Volume: 40%
Chillfiltered? Yes
Color added? ???
(Thanks to Whisky Brett P. for most of the samples this week!!!)

The color is light gold. The nose is somehow both wood pulpy and grainy. Citrus bathroom cleaner, burned sneakers and pears. Acidic oatmeal (not a thing). The weakness of the peat is fascinating, and not in a good way. There's a milky buttery thing in there. A wee wee wee hint of tropical fruit. More than a wee wee wee bit farty. VERY grassy. Smells like one of my own terrible blends. The palate starts of chocolatey and malty. Pipe tobacco and toffee, with a dark berry element underneath. Not bad, but it's thin and watery. Grows more one-dimensionally acidic with time. It finishes both creamy and acidic. Burnt stuff. Some pears. It has a decent length, but an icky chemical citrus aftertaste.

COMMENTARY
or rather
QUESTIONS?
--If this is a mix of 20-something year old whisky and 12 year old whisky, then why is it grassy like a single digit whisky?
--If it's 80% Ardbeg and 20% Glen Moray, then why isn't the Moray absolutely buried in this blend? Even if it was 80% Glen Moray and 20% Ardbeg, it wouldn't read as Moray-heavy as this. Is there something else in the mix here?
--If not, then how awful were those Ardbeg casks? Couldn't they have been sold to Murray McDavid to be salvaged with a nice Mogen David Blackberry finish?
--And where the hell was the SWA during this release? Ardbeg was leaking spraying out this recipe like an incontinent duck after his third espresso. If the SWA threatened to send John Glaser through the spanking machine for revealing less than this about his blends, then why didn't they take away all 38 of Bill Lumsden's cats?
--If Serendipity tasted like it smelled, would I have barfed?
--What the hell is going on here?

Availability - the secondary marketplace, and maybe a dozen European retailers
Pricing - $150-$250, though Winesearcher shows the average price is now where it was five years ago. I can't imagine that's a super sign in this market.
Rating - 72 (dat nose tho)

Seven Ardbeg Tens, 2000-2016 – The Taste Off

I know the PLOWED guys do more epic Ardbeg tastings for breakfast every morning. But this is a big freaking deal at Diving for Pearls.

If you missed the introduction to this seven-way comparison, click on over to Wednesday's post. Here are the stars of the show by bottle code:

1. L0 072 4ML L1033 - bottled in 2000 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Allied, pour purchased and directly deposited into my sample bottle at a mystery bar located somewhere off A846, "old" Ten label
2. L5 290 23:12 4ML - bottled in 2005 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Allied, sample poured from my own bottle, "old" Ten label
3. L7 323 21:19 4ML - bottled in 2007 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Allied and/or Glenmorangie Plc, sample poured from my own bottle, "old" Ten label
4. L8 057 22:45 4ML - The first Black Mystery bottling, bottled in 2008 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Allied and/or Glenmorangie plc, bottled by Glenmorangie plc, pour purchased and directly deposited into my sample bottle at a mystery bar located somewhere off A846, "old" Ten label
5. L10 165 12:47 6ML - bottled in 2010 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Glenmorangie plc, sample poured from my own bottle, "new" Ten label
6. L13 003 11:13 6ML - bottled in 2013 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Glenmorangie plc, sample donated by Brett P. (thanks!), "new" Ten label
7. L65615 - bottled in 2016 by Glenmorangie plc, distilled by Glenmorangie plc, from my own bottle, "new" Ten label

As mentioned on Wednesday, the going theory is that the Tens with bottle codes after L7 143 are from Glenmorangie plc's spirit, even when those codes precede that company's "first" Ardbeg 10yo called "Renaissance". I hope to gain some clarity about this situation with this tasting.

I will be comparing 15-20mL pours side-by-side, then interspersed, until the glasses are empty. That's a lot of alcohol for a lightweight like me, so I'll spread out the tasting over two hours, that way my senses won't become compromised.

Welcome to 2017. Hold on to your butts.

THE NOSES

Whisky	Notes
L0 072 (2000)	Medicinal with some musty dunnage funk. Mothballs, moss and dried grass. Nutty parmesan cheese, smoked butterscotch and a hint of lemon.
L5 290 (2005)	Very potent. Mesquite, rubber, burnt tires and new car smell. Tablet and apples. Tequila + lime juice.
L7 323 (2007)	Barbecue, specifically burnt ends. A bit sugary though, with a touch of vanilla. Elephant cage. A hint of ethyl prickle. With time, some peach slips in.
L8 057 (2008)	Lots of char. Burnt moss. Sesame oil. Maple syrup and a little bit of lemon. Bleach.
L10 165 (2010)	Not as sooty as I remember it being, instead it's an herbal rubbery bomb. Then salt, honey, whole wheat toast and lemon pastries. Slight farmy note.
L13 003 (2013)	Lots of barley and a hint of bacon. Brown sugar, orange peel, vanilla cookies. Peat smoke, plastic toys and saline.
L65615 (2016)	Varnish. Burnt plastic. Yeast in the foreground, ash in the background. Hints of cocoa, band aids and dirty hay.

THE PALATES

Whisky	Notes
L0 072 (2000)	Lovely. A great balance of soft sweetness, bitterness and pepperiness. Pastries, menthol, cayenne pepper and Ceylon cinnamon.
L5 290 (2005)	A wormwood bitterness around the edges. A strong earthy note, and more moss than smoke. Sweet citrus and chili peppers in the background.
L7 323 (2007)	Cinnamon, ethyl heat, salt and mild peat. Sugar, chlorine and jalapeños.
L8 057 (2008)	Pleasantly fruity and salty. No smoke, just vegetal peat. A bit of alcohol warmth. More sweetness and bitterness with time.
L10 165 (2010)	Toasty and sweet. Marshmallows and peat. Brown sugar and tart berries.
L13 003 (2013)	Quite sweet. Mint candy. A little bit of tar and smoke. Mild white fruit note.
L65615 (2016)	Peatiest, hottest and rawest of the group. Salt water, burnt grains and a big bitter bite.

THE FINISHES

Whisky	Notes
L0 072 (2000)	A cool mint and menthol tingle that expands and expands. Some lingering gentle smoke.
L5 290 (2005)	The smoke shows up here with a horseradish bitterness and a big chili pepper bite. Nothing pretty about it.
L7 323 (2007)	The lightest finish of the group. Pepper and chlorine. Mossy peat. Drying.
L8 057 (2008)	Very warm. Burnt ends and a light smokiness. A good bitter bite appears after a while.
L10 165 (2010)	Austere (I'm allowed to use that word once a month) and ashy. Tart and tingly.
L13 003 (2013)	A light herbal bitterness, saline and ashy residue.
L65615 (2016)	A drying ethyl tingle and a peat conflagration. Sour and salty.

COMMENTARY AND RATINGS

Whisky	Notes	Rating
L0 072 (2000)	Codename: Beauty Queen. The most nuanced and balanced of the group, and the best drink to boot. It was the best in all three categories. The peating feels moderate, even lighter than modern Caol Ila.	90
L5 290 (2005)	Codename: Margarita. Rougher around the edges and more chaotic than the 2000, but very appealing in its ruggedness. Once I found the tequila and lime in the nose, I couldn't stop smelling it. Yet it's better than tequila and lime. A lot better.	88
L7 323 (2007)	Codename: Jimmy Durante. A thunderous nose, but a palate that's a little raw and misses more than it hits, especially in the finish. It's still a good drink, though.	85
L8 057 (2008)	Codename: Enigma. Another big crazy nose, but a mellow palate and finish. Almost like two different whiskies.	87
L10 165 (2010)	Codename: Simple Simon. Straightforward modern Ardbeg, but nowhere near as sooty as I remembered it to be. Surprisingly sweet, actually.	87
L13 003 (2013)	Codename: Kildalton Candy. Very rich sweet stuff. Had its finish not completely fizzled out, this may have been a 90-point whisky.	87
L65615 (2016)	Codename: Petulant Toddler. You cannot convince me this is ten years old. Everything in Kilchoman's range, including the half-baked 100% Islays, register as longer-matured than this. This "10 year old" feels maybe five years at its oldest. It's not bad whisky, just very very raw. Truly the most divergent of the group. I do hope it improves because I have most of a bottle left over.	82

Okay enough with all this fancy HTML.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As a result of this tasting, I'm going to agree with the PLOWED and Maniac fellows who say the post-L7 143 stuff is from the new ownership. There are clear differences between the Allied Lyons and Glenmorangie plc distillates. The new stuff is much sweeter. It's also more likely to be inconsistent, out of balance, schizophrenic. That doesn't always mean it's worse, but sometimes it does. And yet when it is worse, it's still much better than most peated whiskies on the market. I would be happy to drink any of these seven whiskies, though I'm a little concerned about the 2016 bottling. It's slightly more acceptable on its own, but it suffers deeply when compared to these other Tens. If my 2016 bottle doesn't improve it might be my last modern Ardbeg Ten. On the other hand, I would be happy to blindly buy a bottle of Allied-era Ardbeg.