Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks
Continuing on with my effort to finish reviewing all my Ardbegs, here’s three random annual releases from 2012, 2015, and 2016.
I’m usually one to dunk on Ardbeg with “oh, the 10 is better than the special releases”, so I’ll pour a little 10 (bot. 2014) to compare at the end.
Tasted on 8/23/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.
Distillery: Ardbeg
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 49.0%
Age: NAS. Distilled in 1999. Bottled on 06/07/2012.
Cask type: Marsala Finish
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered.
Nose: peat smoke. Grapes, lemon rinds. Briny, warm sand. Iodine. White pepper, eucalyptus. Spice is really developing in the glass. New leather. With Water: machine oil. More smoke. More mineral.
Taste: tons of earthy peat smoke. Lemon. Grape juice. Seawater. Very salty. White pepper. New leather. With Water: sweeter.
Finish: peat smoke. Lemons, grapes. Seawater. Mild white pepper. Eucalyptus. Medium length on smoke, fruit, and growing pepper. With Water: more smoke, sweeter, similar otherwise.
Summary: there’s this grape juice note throughout that’s interesting. I think if you dig that then this is a great bottle for you. Me, I’m not so sure. Feels a bit off. This is a decent dram that doesn’t need water, but water does open the nose a bit more and brings out more sweetness. It’s a bit simple otherwise, and the balance is a bit squiffy. As is typical with these releases, it’s a fun take on a variation of the core Ardbeg theme.
Would I buy a bottle? no. Current pricing on this is ludicrous for what it is.
Final Score: 82.
Distillery: Ardbeg
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 47.4%
Age: NAS. Bottled on 03/23/2015.
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. One of 72,000 bottles for 200 years of Ardbeg.
Nose: malty, bread dough. Lemon, tangerine. Peat smoke. Eucalyptus. Seaweed. Vanilla cream. Machine oil. With Water: same.
Taste: warm bread. Sweet lemons. Somewhat thin. Ashy peat smoke. Eucalyptus. Sea spray. Oakey. With Water: a bit thinner.
Finish: ashy peat spoke. Seawater. Bread dough. Sweetened lemon. Vanilla. Eucalyptus. Medium length with lots of citrus, smoke, and spice lingering. Some slightly bitter tea and the end. With Water: same.
Summary: this is a young, bright, pure, malty one. Clearly the youngest of the group. Decent balance, and though simple it really delivers on what it has. I like this one quite a lot, and I generally like young Ardbeg so that tracks. My main knock against it is that it just feels thin and watered down. I’d like to get my hands on the committee release of this to compare, though there wasn’t a drastic difference in bottling strength this year.
Would I buy a bottle? I’ll look for the committee release
Final Score: 83.
Distillery: Ardbeg
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 46.5%
Age: NAS. Bottled on 02/11/2016.
Cask type: Dark Sherry and Bourbon Casks
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered. For Ardbeg Day 2016, “the darkest Ardbeg ever”.
Nose: peat smoke. Quite maritime, with sea spray, wet rocks, brine. Iodine, lemon cough drops. Some orange. Maple syrup. Machine oil. A little tar. With Water: more medicinal.
Taste: thin. Peat smoke. Seawater. Very salty. Building white pepper. Citrus. Tar. Lemon rind. With Water: same.
Finish: lots of peat smoke and seawater. Quite medicinal, too. Sugared lemons. White pepper. Eucalyptus. Tar. Long on smoke and spice, with some rubbery, tarriness in there. With Water: more smoke.
Summary: this is the most maritime and medicinal of the three, with lots of citrus in there too. Some nice oily and tarry notes along with it. Like the previous one, this one is a bit thin, sadly. There’s this maple syrup note that I picked up coming back to it from the 10 that I just can’t let go of now which actually works quite well. Again, water isn’t needed but does make it a bit more medicinal with a bit more smoke.
I honestly get no sherry off of this, and it doesn’t especially strike me as “dark”. I have no idea what they were doing with the marketing on this one.
Would I buy a bottle? at original retail, sure. Now, no.
Final Score: 83.
Comparison
Order: 10 > Perpetuum > Dark Cove > Galileo
These are all very good, but today I dig the pure, young, simplicity of the Perpetuum over the others. And I’m not a fan of that odd, grape-juicy note I find in the Galileo.
So, I poured a bit of the 10 after all of this to compare. Then I drug my wife in to try ’em all. We both agree that the 10 is better than all of them, with more depth of flavor and beautiful balance, but that these are all in a similar range. There’s no great improvement provided by any of these three special releases. They’re variations on a theme, with some high and low points. If all you really care about is “value for money”, then sure, just go buy the 10. If you want some variety, some fun with the standard recipe to see what’s possible, then you’ll be happy to try these, and if you don’t really care much about price, even own a bottle or two.
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.
Malt Runners 