Whisky Porn

@paddockjudge - awesome! Shame about the HP though. To be fair, I've had a few Signatorys now and they've always been decent but I get your stance - once bitten, twice shy, as they say. I guess there's always that gamble with an indi.

@RianC "there's always that gamble"...PERIOD. I've been burned by Lagavulin 16, Talisker 10, and Highland Park 12. You can get a bad batch of ANYTHING.

@Victor, @RianC, there is no certainty when opening a bottle.

I believe it was 2013, tasting from two different bottles of Wiser's 2007 Red Letter; one was mediocre at best, the other was an excellent example of long-age corn whisky finished in new oak. Sometimes it is the cork, sometimes it is the location on a store shelf near a heater or in direct sunlight or all of the aforementioned reasons. @Victor, I don't recall if you had the opportunity to try both bottles in 2013, but we may have done so a year or two later. I was extremely disappointed with the "corked" bottle of 2007 Red Letter 150th Anniversary Edition and did not purchase any additional bottles, even though two of three were of very good quality.

@paddockjudge You take whisky porn to new heights.

Sorry to hear about the Signatory HP coming up dud. I’ve had nothing but good stuff from them, particularly the ones in the black tins. I’ve got a gorgeous Signatory 23 year old Dailuaine on the go at the moment. I’ve found Indy HPs to be a bit of a crap shoot. I did have a very good one from Berry Bros a couple of years ago, but also had a dud from SMOS. As@Victor says, you pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Yes, @paddockjudge, you gave me samples from both bottles of Red Letter back then. I tried them both, and observed very large differences.

Heck, @Nock and I tasted from our bottles of Aberlour A'bunadh Batch # 45 side by side. Mine was excellent; his was not very good. Maybe the difference between 92 points and 82 points. The very same batch that was. You NEVER know for sure in advance what you will get. I will say it again: those who do not accept that fact are merely lacking in experience.

EVERY sample of Lagavulin 16 yo which I have drunk has been very good to excellent, EXCEPT for the only bottle of it which I have bought for myself, which was BAD. I take a sample of Lag 16 whenever it is available, but I am still too burned to go anywhere near wanting to buy another bottle of the stuff for myself. The trauma and distrust is still too great for me to go anywhere near it.

@BlueNote, I've had good luck. Excluding broken corks, I would put my "bad bottle" experiences in the past 15 years at less than 2%.

@Victor, the disappointment and distrust stays with me for a long time when I have been burned by a bad bottle, and it should. At the price of whisky these days I'm surprised there isn't insurance available.

@paddockjudge I would say, "I wish that only 2% of my bottles had been bad." except that the education from the bad bottles has been extremely useful. All things considered my %age of bad bottles has probably not been over 4%.

@Victor, definitely an opportunity for increasing awareness. I have had variation in bottles from the same batch many times. I can't put a number on that because my own palate variability makes it difficult to be completely accurate...I think we have opened Pandora's box...

@Victor....back to the ball game, a late matinee between Toronto and Houston

@paddockjudge yes there are many variables which come into play in observing and assessing the flavours and quality of any whiski, not the least of which is how the very same bottle of whiski changes after it is open and exposed to air. One of the main reasons why I haven't done any whiski reviews recently is that I am now convinced from my own experience that most individual bottles of whiski become 30 or 40 different whiskis if they are sampled over, say, a 12 year period. A single review on a single day now seems to me to be of minor significance with respect to the experience of even a single bottle of whiski...and a lot of work to do in order to paint a picture of relatively minor significance. I would much rather be comparing notes on the beverage sitting down with my mates whilst consuming the beverage face to face with them.

That's cool that you've got Vlad Jr up there. The Nats are gutted now that Scherzer and Trea Turner were traded. I have no reason to watch the Nats any more. I thought of your team the other day when I happened to watch a women's lacrosse game of Johns Hopkins U and Ohio State played at Hopkins. The home team is also the Blue Jays, and the game, played at Hopkins' Homewood Field, is about a mile from MAD's house.

I don’t think I’ve had many awful experiences with “bad bottles”. I may not have enjoyed the contents as much but others have.

I had one Bladnoch 12 that tasted off on opening and took years to become drinkable. Other than that one, and of course the Lambertus that someone “gifted” me, I’ve been pretty lucky.

@Victor, I totally agree with you. A review is a precis of a whiski or spirit at a particular moment in time, no more, no less. Our personal experience is unique and the likelihood of others discovering the same experience is uncertain. Having an opportunity to share from the same bottle at the same moment in time is the best we can do to enable a similar experience. A fortunate few are able to share an identical experience with others, but my understanding is that it is a rare experience. Being in sync with another person's palate is not a common occurrence for me.

@paddockjudge d'accord, mon ami.

@paddockjudge @Victor

While I agree with you that enjoying whiski is an "in the moment thing", and one of the great pleasures is sitting with likeminded friends and tasting good whisky, I maintain that there remains a role for reviews.

First, once I get to know the tastes of a reviewer, I can extrapolate them to my own. The first time I noticed this was with a wine reviewer in our national newspaper. He "introduced" me to Bruichladdich and Springbank too, but his and my tastes were otherwise divergent. Once I get to know how a reviewer writes, I can often tell whether the whiski reviewed is one that I would like to try. Of course when I try it, I make my own decisions.

Second, sometimes a review alerts me to a whiski that I did not know existed, and I have been able to avoid FOMO. Springbank Rundlets and Kilderkins is one example. If I had not seen Ralfy's review I would have missed out on the opportunity to buy (still haven't opened it).

Third, as someone who enjoys learning about whisky and about people, the stories behind the distillery or bottle that may be in the reviews are often informative as well.

Last (in this rant, but not necessarily an exhaustion of the utility of reviews), a review that I do allows me to experience a whiski in a way very different from when I am sipping it for sheer enjoyment, either alone or with others. When I prepare a review I put a lot of attention to picking out as many smells and tastes that I can, I study the effects of water, etc.... Later, should I have a pour of the same spirit, I can go back to the review and recall how I liked it, and sometimes if I liked it a lot with water I will add water right away. Other times I see that adding water will not help it so I don't make the same mistakes again.

I know that the bottle you review could be very different from the one I taste from, but I still think that there is a role for them

@Nozinan yes, indeed. Been there, done that. Not now.

@paddockjudge Are you loving that kid Manoah? Are you loving Bo and Vladi? are you loving our boy Romano? Jays in 30, every night in this house (usually after herself goes to bed to read).

Some already know that Lagavulin 12 is a perennial favorite of mine.