Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks

Thompson Brothers recently released three old, single cask Laphroaigs under the name “Redacted Bros.” for K&L Wines. A buddy who travels to CA often noticed when they were announced for pre-order last August, and a bunch of us went in on a few bottles of each. We finally got them a couple of weeks ago.

These are 29, 30, and 31 years old. No info on the casks besides “oak”, but they have said “unsullied by wine barrels or finishes of any type”. I dig that. This IB has built a great reputation so far, and I do love old Laphroaig, so I’ve got high hopes for these. I’ve already had a bit of the 30 at a tasting and was impressed.

Tasted on 7/14/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.

---

Laphroaig 29 Year (1991) “Redacted Bros.” Islay

Distillery: Laphroaig

Bottler: Phil & Simon Thompson (PST)

Region: Scotland, Islay

ABV: 50.8%, cask strength

Age: 29 years old. Distilled in 1991. Bottled in 2021.

Cask type: Oak Cask

Non-chill-filtered. One of 249 bottles, from a single cask. Bottled by Thompson Bros. as “Redacted Bros. for K&L”.

---

Nose: soft, smoldering peat. Coal. Tropical fruits; coconut, pineapple, kiwi. Sea spray. Wet rocks. Seaweed. Seashells. Mild iodine. White pepper. Sweet. Machine oil. Carnauba wax. With Water: more smoke, more sea, and a touch more medicinal.

Taste: pepper. Lots of ashy smoke. Sweet tropical fruits. Quite oily. A touch of iodine. Seawater. A bit of camphor. A little dry. With Water: a bit less pepper. Sweeter.

Finish: much bigger smoke, ash. Pepper. Lots of sweet fruit and machine oil. Sea spray. Very mineral. Nice length with everything remaining. With Water: excellent. Beautifully balanced and long.

---

Summary: well shit, this is fantastic. Some really classic Laphroaig notes here, but turned down, and so much more than usual comes through. This is the typical story with old Laphroaig, honestly, and it’s a good one. A really nice oily, mineral, maritime character to this one. Lots of sweet, bright tropical fruits wrapped up in subtle smoke, oil, wax, etc. Beautifully balanced throughout, and the biggest finish of the three for sure. Most complex of the three, too. Not an off-note to be found.

Would I buy a bottle? at $300 this is a steal. Wish I’d gotten a whole bottle.

Final Score: 96.

---

Laphroaig 30 Year (1990) “Redacted Bros.” Islay

Distillery: Laphroaig

Bottler: Phil & Simon Thompson (PST)

Region: Scotland, Islay

ABV: 50.2%

Age: 30 years old. Distilled in 1990. Bottled in 2021.

Cask type: Oak Cask

Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 269 bottles, from a single cask. Bottled by Thompson Bros. as “Redacted Bros. for K&L”.

---

Nose: machine oil. Sea spray, brine. Warm, wet sand. Lots of sweet tropical fruits, pineapple. Wood smoke, coal. A tiny bit medicinal. Damp clay. Mild pepper. With Water: some wax. More fruit. More earth.

Taste: oily mouthfeel. Mild wood smoke. Sweet fruit. Oil. A touch dry. Mild pepper. Earthy peat. Charred meat? A bit of bandaid. Mineral. Tea. Warmer than the 1991. With Water: a bit fatty.

Finish: nice pop of smoke. Lots of sweet tropical fruit, pineapple. A touch more medicinal. Mild spice. More earthy, that damp clay. A bit of old leather. A little camphor. Long finish, again on all of it. With Water: more ashy smoke, more earthy.

---

Summary: well shit, again, this one is also fantastic. A lot of similarity to the 1991, but it’s “warmer”, more earthy, more mineral. This one’s a bit more “laphroaigy”, too, with some of that classic bandaid coming through here and there. The longest finish of the three, and it holds all the flavors well to the end, as did the 1991. Not as maritime as the 1991, and a bit more medicinal. Very nice complexity and I feel like I’m getting more even at the end of the glass.

Would I buy a bottle? yes. Already bought one, and again at $300 this is well, well worth it.

Final Score: 95.

---

Laphroaig 31 Year (1989) “Redacted Bros.” Islay

Distillery: Laphroaig

Bottler: Phil & Simon Thompson (PST)

Region: Scotland, Islay

ABV: 51.6%

Age: 31 years old. Distilled in 1989. Bottled in 2021.

Cask type: Oak Cask

Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 238 bottles, from a single cask. Bottled by Thompson Bros. as “Redacted Bros. for K&L”.

---

Nose: very soft. Less tropical fruit, more lemon rind. Ashy coal smoke. Mild peat. Diesel. Lots of black pepper. With Water: bigger, more smoke. Chalk. Sweeter.

Taste: sweet tropical fruits and lemon. Soft ashy smoke. Briney. Diesel. Pepper builds. Oily mouthfeel. With Water: a bit thinner.

Finish: more smoke over sweetened lemon. A bit of pepper. Brine. Long on pepper, smoke, and a touch of fruit. With Water: bigger smoke. Even more salt. A bit medicinal now. Still long on smoke, sweet fruit, and more pepper. A slight tinge of burnt rubber off the end.

---

Summary: this is great. Not as complex as the other two, nor as balanced, but still great. It’s a subtle one on the nose, though water does open it up for sure. It’s a rather simple dram on a few key notes, which it does very, very well. Balance is a bit squiffy, and the shortest finish of the three. It’s perhaps a bit of a shame to try it next to the others; it’s possible it’d score higher solo.

Would I buy a bottle? nah, I’d pass on this one. Glad to have 6oz, but that’ll do me for sure. And this one was $50 more than the other two.

Final Score: 87.

---

Comparison

Order: 1991 > 1990 >> 1989

I really like the 1991 and 1990. They’re both fantastic, complex, subtle, classic old Laphroaigs presented well with no gimmicks, no overpowering finishes, etc. What’s not to love here? These two are close, and I’d usually favor the earthiness of the 1990, but the complexity of the 1991 and that big, beautiful finish wins it for me. What a treat, and a genuine bargain vs. other offerings. The 1990 is a close runner-up.

There’s a gap to the 1989 which surprises me. Not as complex or as well balanced, shorter finish, and rather simple overall. A fine dram for sure, just not up to expectations.

---

Scoring Legend:

• 95-100: As good as it gets. Jaw-dropping, eye-widening, unforgettable whisky.
• 90-94: Sublime, a personal favorite in its category.
• 85-89: Excellent, a standout dram.
• 80-84: Quite good. Quality stuff.
• 75-79: Decent whisky worth tasting.
• 70-74: Meh. It’s definitely drinkable, but it can do better.
• 60-69: Not so good. I might not turn down a glass if I needed a drink.
• 50-59: Save it for mixing.
• 0-49: Blech.