I've never encountered a Bowmore that I found to be even remotely palatable. This include the few I've sampled and the many I've vicariously sampled (nosed them while others complained about the lack of palatability).
Nose: some residual vomit (see previous review of Bowmore 15), dull earthy peat, sugary-candy.
Palate: saccharine arrival with mild spice and watery peat. Thin and treacly overall.
Finish: nice bit of spice on the finish. Red fruits and watery sugar that dulls over time to reveal a vegetal note.
Seriously, how does Bowmore make money putting stuff like this out? It has deterred me from buying any Bowmore, including IB's. I'm sure they make some decent stuff....somewhere. I'll wait for a sample from a friend.
@hunggar (is that a kung fu reference?), interesting assessment. As noted above, a main concern for me is that the entire range possesses this quintessential "Bowmore" profile you observe that offers only variation on (for me) the terrible Bowmore theme. I am willing to give it a shot if the output from me is minimal (i.e. not purchasing a bottle).
@Bluenote, I like the balance of Uggy, and thought it was competent, but overall I found it to be underwhelming. I had a recent batch, so not sure if that had anything to do with it. I actually enjoy the Benriach 12 peated PX much more than Uigedail. I would love to try Laphroaig 18. I sampled some Laphroaig recently that I quite enjoyed.
Bowmore can have this effect on people. I see it as a niche flavour profile. They have a very specific set of flavours that may or may not suit your palate. I rarely love Bowmore, but I think it's an interesting and different distillery. Agreed, though, that the 18 is a lesser whisky. There's a soapy floral note that I can't get past in that one. As suggested, the Laimrig and the Tempest are better, but still quintessentially Bowmore. If you don't like the core range I'm sure you won't like those ones either. Thanks, @TheConscience for your very frank write-up.