Review by: ZoidbergOnTheRocks
Finally, the last Ardbeg lurking in the back of The Scotch Cave, a good ol’ Uigeadail.
A whisky buddy of mine knows how much I like to compare different vintages of Uigeadail and kindly slipped me this 2oz sample of a 2016 bottle. I’ll put it next to a bit of the 2003, which I consider the best one, and some 2020 which I think is a cracking recent version.
I firmly believe there was a significant decline in the quality of Uigeadail in the mid-2010’s, and I was unimpressed with the 2013 and 2015 vintages. So I’m pretty keen to see how this one stacks up.
Tasted on 10/01/2022, neat in a Glencairn, water added later as appropriate.
Distillery: Ardbeg
Bottler: Distillery Bottling
Region: Scotland, Islay
ABV: 54.2%
Age: NAS. Bottled on 05/18/2016.
Cask type: Bourbon / Sherry Casks
Natural color. Non-chill-filtered.
Nose: peat smoke, then everything else is quite muted. Lemon rind, seawater. Diesel. Oak, pencil shavings. A little tar. Some camphor. A little malt. Smoked meats. With Water: still really shy.
Taste: lots of peat smoke, ash. Seawater. Lemon. Wood. Pepper. Crispy bacon. Bitter oak. Burnt rubber. Hot. With Water: feels a bit thinner, less character.
Finish: nice pop of peat smoke and ash. Seawater. Bitter oak, black pepper. A little tar. Medium finish w/ spice, smoke, and some bitterness. A bit hot. There’s a burnt rubber-ish taste throughout which lingers and makes me want to drink something else. With Water: hrm, again, feels a bit thinner. Water doesn’t help here.
Summary: Very shy, especially compared to the 2003 and the 2020. It’s a struggle to get anything but smoke off the nose right after either of those two. It’s fairly simple all around, with a lot of peat smoke followed by a few simple flavors. There’s a lot of oak coming through this one. Sadly, there’s a burnt rubber note on the palate that lingers all the way to the end, which is a shame. It leaves me wanting to drink something else rather than savor the finish. Water doesn’t help this one at all. If anything, it only thins it out and reduces the flavor throughout. I don’t get much sherry out of this one at all, either. All-in-all, a reasonable dram, but there have been many better Uigeadails.
Would I buy a bottle? no
Final Score: 77.
Comparison
Order: 03 > 20 > 16
Well, this is a trivial ordering. I’m not gonna give full notes on the other two. I re-read my previous reviews while drinking these and I stand by them.
The 2003 is delicious as always, the most complex of the three, with the most sherry influence. It’s rich, with an excellent long finish, and a touch of water really makes this one shine.
The 2020 feels even brighter and fruitier than before, which is just fine if not necessarily what you’d expect here. Nice finish, not as long as the ’03, and not as complex. Nice balance, not an off-note to be found, and more spice in the finish than I think I originally noted.
The 2016 is an outlier vs these two. It’s rather simple, very shy on the nose, reads hot on the palate even w/ water, and water does it no favors. There’s a burnt rubber off-note that really pulls it down a notch. Minor note: it’s the palest of the three by a decent margin. Fewer sherry casks, or less caramel… you decide.
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 