Fernando Rocker
Banned
arotator said:
Is the Johnny Walker Red Label any good?
We have some Duty Free stores here at Laredo, and they sell very often the Red Label for 2 for $26...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
single malt whisky thread
- Thread starter nitewulf
- Start date
- Status
Is the Johnny Walker Red Label any good?
We have some Duty Free stores here at Laredo, and they sell very often the Red Label for 2 for $26...
Chuckie
Member
Fernando Rocker said:
A co-worker of mine said he wouldn't even use it as window-cleaner. Mind you, my co-worker is a snobbish cunt, so I don't really know how true that statement is.
However I have heard from several people that that whiskey is nice for mixing with coke but not to drink straight.
True, though I just stay away from Johnnie Walker Red completely. I don't think he's being snobbish, just prudent enough not to waste his money. I think Johnnie Walker Black is alright to drink though, but I prefer Teacher's Highland Cream as my staple whisky blend (we don't get a good variety of blends in Australia).Tence said:
Fernando Rocker said:
I haven't had JWR in years, and that was before I was really interested in whisky. My go to "cheap" whisky is Jameson. I'd do the Red Label over Passport, however.
Most people who drink whisky seriously are going to dismiss most blends (I haven't owned or drank a blend in almost a year), so asking whether they are "good" or not is going to be in the eye of the beholder, and most of us here would tell you to go with a cheaper single malt over a blend any day.
If you are going to get a cheaper (blended) whisky I think the class of what S.L. mentioned will be far better than Passport. Think of Passport as the Aristocrat (vodka) of whiskies (~$15-20). I honestly think you'd be better off not getting whisky at all and just getting beer/wine/rum/whatever. Think of JWR/Famouse Grouse/Jameson/ as Smirnoff/Stolechnya (~$25-30), they are worth drinking and enjoying by themselves, though far from the best you could do. Above those you have your entry level Single Malts (~$30-40), ala Glenlivet 12, MaCallan 12, some of these can be damn good and give you much more of a sense of what quality whisky drinking entails (e.g. I really enjoy MaCallan 12). Whatever the merits of that middle class - JWR/Grouse/Jameson - I think they'll be infinitely better than Passport, so certainly not "window cleaner."
Given your price range you won't want to leave the Smirnoff price range, though if you go to a bulk place like Sams you may find a decent Single Malt (Glenlivet 12, MaCallan 12 for ~$30 a bottle, maybe even a bigger bottle than 750 ml, you'll just have to check). Also, if this is a wedding setting and people are just going to be downing drinks (i.e. "drinking to get drunk) you absolutely do not want to be serving them a bunch of single malts, that isn't what they're for. You can do that with those middle class of whiskies, and they'll be very tolerable, though that isn't how they're intended either.
Is there a reason you're sticking to Scotch instead of Bourbons? You can get some quality bourbon in what I think is your price range. Makers Mark, Evan Williams Single Barrel, maybe even regular Evan Williams ($12), and though I'm not a huge fan of it, Wild Turkey. I'd probably recommend Buffalo Trace ($20-23) for your situation the most, it is consistently rated highly and very drinkable straight, or mixed.
Fernando Rocker
Banned
arotator said:
Wow... thanks a lot for your response. It was extremely helpful.
I will check all this info with my fianceé later tonight.
Thanks, bro!
Fernando Rocker
Banned
@arotator
Just one last question... what abou Buchanan's?
I really don't know anything about whisky (but after reading this thread, I really want to know a lot more about the topic)... but I don't know why Buchanan's is extremely popular here in the city...
It's probably not very good, right? I always have thought that Buchanan's is for the people who really doesn't know anything about good whiskies.
Just one last question... what abou Buchanan's?
I really don't know anything about whisky (but after reading this thread, I really want to know a lot more about the topic)... but I don't know why Buchanan's is extremely popular here in the city...
It's probably not very good, right? I always have thought that Buchanan's is for the people who really doesn't know anything about good whiskies.
Can't really comment, I've never had Buchanan's.
I don't know where you're at, so shipping rates might make it prohibitive, but check out klwines.com and their spirits section. They usually have the best prices on the net and that will give you some more ideas of what is in your price range (just note everything there will probably be cheaper than you find in your local store -- at least before shipping).
I don't know where you're at, so shipping rates might make it prohibitive, but check out klwines.com and their spirits section. They usually have the best prices on the net and that will give you some more ideas of what is in your price range (just note everything there will probably be cheaper than you find in your local store -- at least before shipping).
ok, i'm sipping on a glass of it hereTheExodu5 said:
nose: flowery, cold, tiny bit metallic, tad alcoholic - goes away after 10min or so, slightly sweet, sugar syrup
taste: a bit coffee, a bit burnt(?), grassy, flowery
finish: medium~short, a bit spice
i think this one would be a LOT better at 43% or higher, at 40 it is just too watery and flavorless. too expensive for what it offers. all in all not very complex, and a bit unremarkable
I changed my mind, my go to cheap whisky is in fact Buffalo Trace. Went to the local shop last night to get Highland Park 12 year and a cigar and they just happened to be offering samples of Buffalo Trace. I forgot how much I like it, and though there are very few whiskies I'd put on rocks, Buffalo Trace is one that I would and not feel bad about it at all. And I really want some ice when I'm sitting outside in 90+ degree heat. I'd also be willing to mix it. Why? That leads me to the best part...
Only $19 on sale. And it tastes great.
Only $19 on sale. And it tastes great.
SmellyHands
Member
I wouldn't recommend JWR personally. I tried it about a year ago on a whim and it tastes a lot like burnt plastic. Even mixed with Coke I couldn't get past that taste. I don't drink scotch very often, but Glenrothes ain't bad as a middle of the road brand.
Danoss said:
Buffalo Trace is a "small batch" whisky ala Knob Creek. What constitutes a "small batch" can change from distiller to distiller, but if memory servers, its around 200 barrels for BT. So BT can be thought of as a blend of selective batches of whisky. So the nuances of its taste can change from year to year (or months to months), like a single malt. So to answer your question, it isn't quite either.
But whether or not something is a blend or a single malt doesn't determine whether its whisky. Plenty of whiskies are blended, plenty of scotch is blended - i.e. the whole Johnny Walker line. Some bourbons come from single barrels (ala single malts). Most single malts are selective "blends" of the same type of malt (e.g. "single"), that's part of the master distiller's job, making sure the whisky stays consistent from year to year, mixing when necessary. I think the main thing single malts aren't doing that blends do, is blending whiskies from disparate years, say a 12 year and 3 year. [Edit: I double checked this and the answers I found suggested the distinguishing mark of a "blend" is whether or not it comes from more than one distillery and blends also tend to consist of some grain whereas single malts don't. Hey, learned something new.]
Traditionally whisky has either been barley, rye, wheat, or corn based. I suppose any starch that was barrel aged for the requisite amount of time could be a whisky, so long as it was processed the same in all other respects. I'm not certain, but I believe its rather a matter of contingency that whiskies came to be barley, rye, wheat, and corn based - since those were readily available and good for distilling, but I'm just conjecturing.
Bourbons only have their name because they were whiskies made in "Bourbon county" Kentucky. They are still "bourbon whiskies" though.
Feel free to correct me if I went astray at any point in time, I think the above is pretty accurate but I'm not 100% sure, especially when it comes to the single malt/blend distinction. I also think there are some exceptions making these classifications difficult.
I don't believe the term "single malt" can be applied to bourbon as that isn't really their primary focus and may not even contain any malted barley at all.
Bourbon whiskey and scotch whisky are different, consisting of different ingredients. Corn must be contained within Bourbon Whiskey and malted barely must be contained within Scotch Whisky. Many Bourbon makers went so far as to add an "e" to whisky make sure it wasn't mistaken for what poor quality stuff was coming out of Scotland some time ago. Many Irish whiskeys did the same.
A single barrel speaks for itself as you are getting a direct taste out of one specific barrel. A Small Batch volume does indeed vary between each distillery; one respected distiller said that a small batch should use no more that 10 barrels, as after that it begins to lose its distinct taste.
Their names differ as to where they originated from and also to distinguish a difference between the two. This is because there is a difference, I know I can taste a Scotch and a Bourbon and tell you which is which, it's not difficult.
All Scotch/Bourbon is Whisky, but not all Whisky is Scotch/Bourbon.
Anyway, this was born out me having a joking poke at the mention of a Bourbon in a Single Malt Whisky thread. The only reason I said anything is that Buffalo Trace and Highland Park were referred to in the same paragraph. Bourbon has been mentioned before in this thread and will be mentioned again.
Bourbon whiskey and scotch whisky are different, consisting of different ingredients. Corn must be contained within Bourbon Whiskey and malted barely must be contained within Scotch Whisky. Many Bourbon makers went so far as to add an "e" to whisky make sure it wasn't mistaken for what poor quality stuff was coming out of Scotland some time ago. Many Irish whiskeys did the same.
A single barrel speaks for itself as you are getting a direct taste out of one specific barrel. A Small Batch volume does indeed vary between each distillery; one respected distiller said that a small batch should use no more that 10 barrels, as after that it begins to lose its distinct taste.
Their names differ as to where they originated from and also to distinguish a difference between the two. This is because there is a difference, I know I can taste a Scotch and a Bourbon and tell you which is which, it's not difficult.
All Scotch/Bourbon is Whisky, but not all Whisky is Scotch/Bourbon.
Anyway, this was born out me having a joking poke at the mention of a Bourbon in a Single Malt Whisky thread. The only reason I said anything is that Buffalo Trace and Highland Park were referred to in the same paragraph. Bourbon has been mentioned before in this thread and will be mentioned again.
chicko1983
Member
Here's a pic from my scotch tasting night a couple weeks back (sorry for the quality, I was a bit drunk when I took it).
Left to right: Some french oak scotch, glenmorangie (I think 15yo), the glenlivet 15yo, sullivans cove (12yo Australian single malt from Tasmania), hart brothers 15yo
my favourite was the hart brothers but everyone else liked the glenlivet. The sullivan's cove was different. Very dry and creamy. Completely different to any other single malt I have had (but I am only beginning to drink single malts).
Left to right: Some french oak scotch, glenmorangie (I think 15yo), the glenlivet 15yo, sullivans cove (12yo Australian single malt from Tasmania), hart brothers 15yo
my favourite was the hart brothers but everyone else liked the glenlivet. The sullivan's cove was different. Very dry and creamy. Completely different to any other single malt I have had (but I am only beginning to drink single malts).
DigitalDevil
Member
chicko1983 said:Here's a pic from my scotch tasting night a couple weeks back (sorry for the quality, I was a bit drunk when I took it).
Left to right: Some french oak scotch, glenmorangie (I think 15yo), the glenlivet 15yo, sullivans cove (12yo Australian single malt from Tasmania), hart brothers 15yo
my favourite was the hart brothers but everyone else liked the glenlivet. The sullivan's cove was different. Very dry and creamy. Completely different to any other single malt I have had (but I am only beginning to drink single malts).
I wish I had enough friends where I live now to do this
chicko1983
Member
DigitalDevil said:I wish I had enough friends where I live now to do this
Yeah I was surprised I had enough mates who were keen to join in when I brought the idea of a single malt whisky tasting night up.
The rules were that everyone who was drinking had to bring a bottle of single malt in the $75-100 AUD range.
We are going to do it every couple of months and make sure we bring in a different bottle each time.
It was awesome fun and everyone agreed that it was a good idea and way to taste heaps of different whiskys which we wouldnt have otherwised bought or drunk.
edit: we didnt have to finish the bottle either and it wasnt considered rude if you took your bottle home.
Just got some Highland Park 12 year. I can see why I wasn't in love with it the fist time I had it (it was, I think, my second single malt ever). Lots of subtlety to the flavors, ones I'm sure I didn't pick up on the first time. I still wouldn't say it is one of my favorites, but I see why it is recommended to beginners and receives accolades for being a well-rounded dram.
I enjoyed Springbank 10 specifically remembering that mineraly taste.
My favorites so far are Islays, with Laphroaig 10 being the clear favorite. I've had the 18, but honestly, I like the 10 better. The 18 feels too restrained; the 10 is raw and unfettered, by comparison. Ardbeg 10 is a good alternative to Laphroaig, and I could see the difference between the two as personal choice. Different enough to warrant a place for both bottles, and definitely recommended for those who like Islays.
Just polished off a bottle of Bunnahabhain 12. I'd suggest it to anyone interested in Islays, but might be put off by the gruffness of Laphroaig. It's milder, but still retains enough of the region's signature peat to separate it from the other single malts. Would drink again.
Scapa 16 wasn't particularly memorable to me, and Macallan 12 felt the same way. It's good, but feels kind of ... plain? It's definitely something I would serve to guests whose tastes I'm not too familiar with, because it's such a staple and neutral in profile. Edit: Also preferred Dalwhinnie 15 to Macallan. It just has such a nice, lingering finish.
For that kind of whiskey I prefer Yamazaki 12. The 18 is amazing, but the 12 is just more affordable for an everyday kind of single malt.
My favorites so far are Islays, with Laphroaig 10 being the clear favorite. I've had the 18, but honestly, I like the 10 better. The 18 feels too restrained; the 10 is raw and unfettered, by comparison. Ardbeg 10 is a good alternative to Laphroaig, and I could see the difference between the two as personal choice. Different enough to warrant a place for both bottles, and definitely recommended for those who like Islays.
Just polished off a bottle of Bunnahabhain 12. I'd suggest it to anyone interested in Islays, but might be put off by the gruffness of Laphroaig. It's milder, but still retains enough of the region's signature peat to separate it from the other single malts. Would drink again.
Scapa 16 wasn't particularly memorable to me, and Macallan 12 felt the same way. It's good, but feels kind of ... plain? It's definitely something I would serve to guests whose tastes I'm not too familiar with, because it's such a staple and neutral in profile. Edit: Also preferred Dalwhinnie 15 to Macallan. It just has such a nice, lingering finish.
For that kind of whiskey I prefer Yamazaki 12. The 18 is amazing, but the 12 is just more affordable for an everyday kind of single malt.
I just got an early birthday present from my girlfriend, a membership to The Scotch Malt Whiskey Society. So I have 4 100ml bottles of random scotch's coming next week, and a bottle of this stuff. (which the internet says is made by Auchentoshan)
arglebargle
Member
ive been working my way through a bottle of macallan the past week or so. tonight while i was out i had a deaths door white whiskey which i liked a lot. and that sullivans cove looks interesting, maybe ill see if i can find a bottle of that.
Holy crap! A whisky thread!
I love you GAF.
My current collection:
The blended Bells is for guests
There's another seven boxes of the Glenmorangie 10yr in the garage after taking advantage of Morrison's 70cl-for-£15 deal last year. Limited to three bottles per purchase though, so I had to keep looping around the tills. Got some very funny looks indeed. I like trying new whiskies but always seem to come back to Glenmorangie. It's probably my all-time 'general use' number one.
Penderyn (a local Welsh single malt) is well worth trying if you can find it. Smooth and delicious, but quite expensive as an 'everyday' malt. It's not shown in my collection above as it doesn't last too long once I get my hands on a bottle.
http://www.welsh-whisky.co.uk/
I love you GAF.
My current collection:
The blended Bells is for guests
There's another seven boxes of the Glenmorangie 10yr in the garage after taking advantage of Morrison's 70cl-for-£15 deal last year. Limited to three bottles per purchase though, so I had to keep looping around the tills. Got some very funny looks indeed. I like trying new whiskies but always seem to come back to Glenmorangie. It's probably my all-time 'general use' number one.
Penderyn (a local Welsh single malt) is well worth trying if you can find it. Smooth and delicious, but quite expensive as an 'everyday' malt. It's not shown in my collection above as it doesn't last too long once I get my hands on a bottle.
http://www.welsh-whisky.co.uk/
POWERSPHERE
Member
I just picked up this Lagavulin Distillers 1994 when coming back into the USA for $60.
It's finished in Sherry casks, so it's got a sweeter, more syrupy finish to it. Not as complex as normal Laga, but it's a lovely change. Still has that Peaty punch, but a more mellow ride through it. After getting through a litre of Laphroig Quarter Cask over the last few months, it's basically honey & milk!
It's finished in Sherry casks, so it's got a sweeter, more syrupy finish to it. Not as complex as normal Laga, but it's a lovely change. Still has that Peaty punch, but a more mellow ride through it. After getting through a litre of Laphroig Quarter Cask over the last few months, it's basically honey & milk!
adamsappel
Member
Very nice.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with blended scotches. In fact, Scottish distillers initially found the surging popularity of single-malts perplexing. A careful blend of raw whiskies into something sublime seemed much preferable to them. I usually find blends to be too smooth, though. A friend recently offered me some of her father-in-law's JW Green (there was barely a dram left in the Blue bottle, which I would have preferred). It was perfectly fine, if a little boring. JW Red isn't worth drinking, even mixed, though I did see one of the popular YouTube reviewers had recently tried a very old bottle and found the flavors had married further into a more-complex spirit. I've had a bottle in the back of my cabinet for 20 years, hopefully in another 20 it might be worth trying.
POWERSPHERE
Member
S. L. said:
Haha, it was a few in that I posted it.
First of all:
Hi, WhiskyGAF
After lurking a lot I am finally able to post in here. Yay!
After my Lagavulin 16yo "died" a week ago (It was a very sad moment. He was my first own whisky ) I am going to pick up the DE of it soon too. I am a little hyped.
Yesterday at the Pub I tasted two whiskies. Just what I remember, didn't write down notes:
1. Ardbeg Uigeadail
2. Bunnahabhain Heavily Peated 13yo (should be a Signatory)
Looking forward to taste the Lagavulin DE.
Hi, WhiskyGAF
After lurking a lot I am finally able to post in here. Yay!
POWERSPHERE said:
After my Lagavulin 16yo "died" a week ago (It was a very sad moment. He was my first own whisky
) I am going to pick up the DE of it soon too. I am a little hyped.Yesterday at the Pub I tasted two whiskies. Just what I remember, didn't write down notes:
1. Ardbeg Uigeadail
- nose: smoky, but also very sweet. Although it's 54,2% alc., I didn't smell much of it. Very nice.
- taste: first it was pretty sweet, but after a few seconds came the smoke. I thought it was over, but there was a very surprising burn almost like chilli or pepper.
- overall: AWESOME! So much better than the 10yo Ardbeg.
2. Bunnahabhain Heavily Peated 13yo (should be a Signatory)
- nose: Much more alcoholic, smoky (but not really heavily ) and - yeah, I know it sounds strange - I smelled something like urinal cake, after a few minutes it vanished, but it was very strange.
- taste: muuuch better than the nose. Smoke and bit of sweetness plus a bit of pepper. Pretty complex, couldn't get everything
- overall: not nearly as good as the Ardbeg, but it leaves a nice warmth in the mouth and the body. But I think it's too pricey for the quality.
Looking forward to taste the Lagavulin DE.
I'm really liking the Lagavulin 16 on a revisit. I love how the nose goes from dry and peaty to heavy sweet after it breathes with a tiny bit of water.
It might be tied with the Yoichi 10 as my preferred whisky to date, vs:
Glenlivet 12
Glenfiddich 12, Snow Phoenix
Laphroaig Quarter Cask
Dalwhinnie 15
Out of my experience so far, I'd say that nosing is like 80% of the experience for me. I'm warming up to the taste quite a bit, but I just can't get enough of the smell. I think it's one reason I love the Yoichi 10 so much...the nose is really interesting to me. I nosed the MacAllan 18 today and was left a little disappointed since it seemed really close to the standard Glenlivet 12.
It might be tied with the Yoichi 10 as my preferred whisky to date, vs:
Glenlivet 12
Glenfiddich 12, Snow Phoenix
Laphroaig Quarter Cask
Dalwhinnie 15
Out of my experience so far, I'd say that nosing is like 80% of the experience for me. I'm warming up to the taste quite a bit, but I just can't get enough of the smell. I think it's one reason I love the Yoichi 10 so much...the nose is really interesting to me. I nosed the MacAllan 18 today and was left a little disappointed since it seemed really close to the standard Glenlivet 12.
- Status