It’s another review Sunday! I’m still aiming to review one whisky a week until I’m through my current collection. Luckily for me, my collection seems to be ever growing so I don’t see this cadence changing any time soon. Surprise surprise, I’ve pulled another peaty gem out of the cabinet! Lagavulin 16 is one of the old boys. It’s a well known distillery that carries prestige with its name. It’s just up the road from Laphroaig on Islay and both distilleries pump out the lion’s share of the world’s most consumed peaty goodness.
More recently, Lagavulin has been brought to the attention of Millennials thanks to Nick Offerman’s Ron Swanson in Parks And Recreation. If you haven’t seen the show, you should. It’s a great comedy. I won’t spoil the story, but Lagavulin is mentioned quite a bit in it and it’s present all the way through to the end of the show. Put it this way, Lagavulin have released Offerman editions – I’m not sure if I know of all of them, but there was an 11 year old Guinness cask, 11 year old charred oak cask, and more recently, an 11 year old Caribbean cask. Marketing tool? Definitely. Tasty? Not sure, haven’t got the stomach to cough up the dough to try one of them.
Lagavulin 16 is the distillery standard. It’s the Lagavulin that you try if you are curious as to what Lagavulin tastes like. The bottle presentation is lovely – probably my current favourite.
The classic shape, the off white label, the classic text. The whole thing looks classy and expensive. The cork is lovely too. Yes, even the cork.
It’s one of Diageo’s babies and I’m sure the company makes a pretty penny from it. Those ‘in the know’ will tell you that Lagavulin of yesteryear is much better than the Lagavulin 16 of today. I’m sorry to say but it’s highly unlikely you’ll see me reviewing a classic bottle of Lagavulin 16 on here. The current bottling is only just about in my price range when it’s on special offer; and I’d like to keep my kidneys where they are instead of trading them for a bottle of vintage Lagavulin 16. Anyway, I’ll stop waffling. This bottling is at 43% ABV, and, get this, is chill filtered and had added colour. Now, I could ramble on for a long while here talking about what this means to me as the drinker, but I’m going to do my best to keep it short and sweet. We’ve established that I’ve never tasted an older bottling of Lagavulin 16, and we’ve also established that this distillery has a strong reputation. In this modern age of single malt whisky, a good quality single malt is expected to have no added colouring, and not be chill filtered. To pay £70+(full price) for a bottle of Lagavulin 16 and to have it be obscured with chill filtration and added colour is a bit insulting to the intelligence of the single malt drinker. I can’t help but feel that it’s slightly underhand. The brand clearly wants consistency, but when you are paying a pretty penny for a bottle of Lagavulin 16, you’d hope the consistency comes from the casks themselves. It’s 2024, we simply don’t care if a single malt is a pale straw colour. We know the colour isn’t a true reflection of the taste. We also know that adding a colourant such as E150 (caramel) will change the taste – even if it’s just ever so slightly – and that results in the taste of the whisky being altered. And for what? A façade that darker whisky is better than lighter whisky, that some of the older distilleries still buy in to. I said I’d try to keep it short and sweet, and I don’t think I quite managed it. If you want to read more about how chill-filtration affects the whisky in our glass, you can read it here in my Laphroiag 10 review.
Anyway, let’s get to business before the wife starts to wonder what I’m doing. She’s already asking if I’m nearly done – maybe we can watch Parks and Recreation tonight?
I’ll be drinking a dram in a Glencairn with no added water.
NOSE: Lovely warm peat, equal parts medicinal and wood smoke, touch of green apple, and a hit of ethanol. There’s an earthy note in there too, cloves, a touch of sourness, and a warm spice – curry leaf.
TASTE: The peat and smoke is there straight away, as expected. The cloves aren’t far behind it, the alcohol burns ever so slightly, yet the fresh tastes don’t translate from the smell – the apple doesn’t show up, the sourness doesn’t either. The earthy notes are slightly there, but it is slight. In general, the taste is quite thin. The flavours are all quite sharp, and fizz on the tip and the sides of my tongue, but nothing really lingers on the back of the tongue to give it body.
SUMMARY: I’m glad I’ve bought a bottle to try it, and I’m even more glad that I got it on offer. I’m just going to go right ahead and say it – I don’t think it’s worth the money. I think Laphroiag 10 is a tastier dram (as well as Port Charlotte 10, Glen Scotia Double Cask even) and that’s just on taste alone, let alone a taste-to-cost opinion). Taste is a personal thing, and what you and I like may vary. I just know that the price of this bottle puts a sour taste in my mouth for the taste experience (and not the sourness I could smell either).
4.5/10
