17 July 2015 Ruben Laphroaig

Laphroaig 1998 (Signatory for TWE)

Name: Laphroaig 1998 (Signatory for TWE)
Brand: Laphroaig
Rating: 4 (2 reviews)

This Laphroaig 1998 is another new exclusive for The Whisky Exchange, bottled by Signatory Vintage. Again it is not a completely undiscovered series, adjacent sherry butts have been bottled for La Maison du Whisky and others.

Laphroaig 16 yo 1998
(59,9%, Signatory Vintage for TWE 2015, refill sherry butt #700389, 585 btl.)

Nose: a very sooty kind of Laphroaig. Lots of earthy smoke and leafy notes, wet limestone and leather. Exhaust fumes and hints of matches. There’s a dark sweetness to it as well, with lacquered roast meat and beef jerky as well as something of prune sauce. Peppery chocolate and subtle medicinal notes. A very dark style.

Mouth: really dark smoke again, with tarry notes and mineral notes. The charred raisins on the outside of a raisin roll. Liquorice and Pu’ehr tea, with some cough candy. Espresso. A nice mintiness (After Eight) and sweet tobacco lift it up a little.

Finish: long, still very smoky and leathery, with some salted almonds and cinnamon.

An interesting, dense and dark Laphroaig. The spirit overpowers the sherry in this case, but that is obviously not so bad. As you know sherried Laphroaig doesn’t come cheap these days: around € 170. Available from TWE.

Score: 88/100

5Comments

Add yours

1

stumptownterrior on 17 July 2015 at 19:31

Interesting bottle, though I will never probably be able to find it for purchase, much less try it. Thanks for the fascinating notes at any rate!
Ruben, I was wondering if you will get the chance to re-review the Lagavulin 16 any time soon. I enjoyed your review of the OB 16 YO 2007. Very helpful to see how the older bottles fared back in the day.
If you could review the 2014 Lag 16, I’m sure a great many readers would find your POV helpful. I am trying to figure out if the 16 YO OB are doing a little downhill due to amping up the volume and production of the number of bottles made to satisfying increased world demand.
As for Laphroaig, I have tasted the CS 003-006. I prefer the 003 and then the 006, while not so much with the 004 and 005. Like you, I tend to enjoy a sophisticated and expansive profile. I’ve also had bottles of the OB 18 and the Cairdeases from 2012 up through 2014. Unlike many, I did not really care for the 2014. In fact, I traded my two bottles away! What I did enjoy were the 2012 and the 2013. I know a good many Laphroaig fans did not like the fairly sweet atypical profile of the 2013, but I really appreciated it. The 2012 was very smooth to me, unlike the review from the period that called it intense and extra powerful. I think those reviewers were not all that familiar with the CS offering or they would not have said that! The 2012 had quite a bit of older spirit (14-17 YO) I think, judging by the depth and the richness of it. This said, it was not as bombastic and panoramic as the CS offerings, but why should it have been? Er . . . other than the fact that it was, itself, cask strength, or just about so.
As for the OB 18, not my thing at all. Tastes musty and rather dog eared to me with very little in the way of satisfaction. This said, until recently, the price of this offering in Portland Oregon was very low ($89). It was hard to complain at that price, but I still managed a grumble or two knowing how fine a Laphroaig can be when it tries . . . especially without the artificial caramel and the lower ABV.
2

stumptownterrior on 18 July 2015 at 10:33

Just tasted the Lag 2014 16 tonight at Horse Brass pub in Portland, OR, USA. It’s been a few years since I tasted the 16. I would say the nose is far better than the palate, which is a bit weak. At my home, I have a bottle of Lag DE 2012 that really blew the socks off the Lag 16.

This said, the Lag 16 had more leathery notes, which can be nice, but it was all in the nose. I would say the palate was almost unsatisfying. I’m not sure why Serge on WF still raves about it.

In my humble opinion, the Lag 16 used to be far better 15 years ago. Not sure about the 2007 but I used to drink it more commonly around 2001 and it seemed better then. More rich, complex, powerful, and oily.
3

Herr on 18 July 2015 at 21:37

Ruben – the TWE link is wrong?
4

WhiskyNotes on 18 July 2015 at 22:51

Updated, thanks.
5

S. on 19 July 2015 at 15:16

Hi Ruben,
In my opinion this is the most interesting of the 3 very recent set of (dark green label) bottlings by Signatory exclusive for The Whisky Exchange and I’m not even a big Islay fan!
The Glenlivet 1981 was GOOD but did not quite live to my expectations especially after the sister cask #9460 (orange label) they bottled last year for Whisky Show 2014. The Clynelish 96 Sherry Butt was good but had too much overripe/sweet orange notes and this Laphroaig 98 really stood out and kept evolving and improving in the glass especially with water which is obligatory here of course. It’s also the one that had the most length (and it wasn’t just due to the peatiness/medicinal/Iodine smokiness of Laphroaig) but also due to the substance and overall quality.
At the end, they all shared the common characteristics of dark oak, leather, woody spicy notes and old fashioned dunnage warehouse notes all coming from active Sherry Butts and very importantly, WITHOUT SULPHURY notes!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related posts