Ardbeg Auriverdes

@MaltActivist interesting review - thank you. I wasn't sure what to expect from this new expression.

How does the 49.9% go down? You state it's a bit thin and weak.

@Frost just like you suspect. Quite thin and weak. A lot more earthy than other Ardbegs. Probably closest to the 10 than anything else but without the confidence. I think the experiment's gone a bit wayward. I will, of course, re-visit this later on but till then I am not impressed.

Thanks, @MaltActivist for your review.

Well, what do you do if you are a whiskymaker and suffering the problem of unprecedented demand for your product? What do you do when you have seriously dwindling supply of product which takes 10-20 years to age? This is happening to the old guard distillers all over the world right now.

Getting more flavour out of relatively young whiskies is a task which most of the distilleries have been at for some time now. Playing with new vs. used oak, the use of smaller barrels, residue from exotic spirits in the woods used, and the use of charring to get more out of the wood, have been the main tools used in this quest. For my taste the exotic measures really only work well once in awhile. More often than not they still taste mostly like shortcuts have been employed, which they have.

I will be interested in sampling the Auriverdes. It remains to be seen what happens when it gets some air time also.

@Victor normally I would agree with you and sympathize with the old guard distillers over lack of supply. However, this is the same distillery that gave us a 6 yr old Very Young and an 8 year old sublime Still Young. So coaxing flavors out of young whiskies is something they know quite well.

Kilkerran with their WIP series have some real stunners. Kilchoman of late have been producing wonderful flavors.

Besides this expression has a lot of non-experimental Ardbeg in it as well. So maybe the fault lies in the blending?

I will re-visit this after a while and report back. Maybe it's turned for the better.

An 85 is about where I would put this too. And there is nothing wrong with that. An 85 is good whisky. I will quite happily be finishing my bottle. I just won't be picking up another one. The biggest fault I can find with this is the price. 85-100 dollars is a lot for "good."

@MaltActivist, it will be very interesting to see what the 2nd and 3 impressions are for Ardbeg Auriverdes.

@Onibubba, as you say, 85 is not "bad" whisky, just not what we are expecting from Ardbeg. And yes, for $ 85-100 I too am expecting top tier flavour.

While it's not likely to happen, a cask strength 10 would be a lot better than all these hyped finishes. But I imagine their stocks could not even handle a small release and the price point would be well into the $200 range.

Whisky Advocate gave the Auriverdes an '84' rating, so it seems you are right on track.

Hi @MaltActivist, many thanks for this review. I'll get my bottle in a week's time, although your review does not sound too promising. In particular, a thin and weak palate is the last thing that I'd want to see in any Ardbeg. Pity, really.