Big Peat 26 Year (1992) The Platinum Edition

Review by: TOModera

What was the occasion: I had blends, now I don’t. They are gone now, but the reviews will remain… well at least 3 years. If not slightly more. It’ll be like the column of Ozymandias, except sadder.

What whisky did we review? Big Peat 26 1992 – The Platinum Edition is part of the Big Peat series, however this one differs as it’s not holiday themed, it has an age statement, it has a vintage, and it’s not cask strength but it is a respectable abv.

Still has a guy on the front who would make you concerned he’ll eat your children though. Gotta keep that marketing. Glad that the spirit of Krampus lives on.

What’s the distillery? Douglas Laing Sr. once drank an entire cask of 1970s Ardbeg while staring a tied up tater directly in their tear drenched eyes, and then only rated it an 80.

Oh, shit, no, that was some of my whisky fan fiction, not real life. Maybe that’s because I’ve literally run out of interesting facts by Douglas Laing blenders. Check out the previous Remarkable Malts for more information, but the short of it is they make blended malts for each region, and Big Peat is the Islay region one. Then they started making age stated and different flavoured versions and now I’m here.

Also the universe may have come into being at some point, but I’m only half way through Descartes and Saigon, so that’s only a maybe.

What’s my bias? I don’t hate the Douglas Laing Remarkable Malts, but I also don’t include price into my reviews, and that’s caused a stir from some commenters. So re-read that last part and you’ll know my bias. The last four Big Peat were two okays and two wins, and that includes the Gold Edition, which was one year less then this one.

Also I’m a big ole’ Peat Head. Not my first peat rodeo. But that comes with baggage. Older peated whiskies can either be legendary or a waste of money. I have a bias towards younger whiskies. Which still gives me the ick each time I write it.

Alright, now that I’ve written an entire section on my bias, how I don’t include price, and eventually a commenter will ignore it, we’re ready for the review. Let’s see how this is, shall we?

Distillery: Douglas Laing .

Bottler: Blender’s Bottling.

Region: Blended Malt.

ABV: 51.5%.

Age: 26 years. Distilled in 1992. Bottled in 2018.

Cask type: Unknown.

Price: $125 USD.

Color: 5Y 8/8.

Nose: Brownie, banana, coal, ham, strawberry

Hey, got some of that chocolate I was wanting, we’re all good, thumbs up, great time, buy a bottle, sell your kidney for one, beat up your mom taters, need a new bottle you’ll never finish.

Sorry, more fanfic. There is a nice buttery, fudgey note here, and some other sweet funk, sweet, and meat/industrial notes. Like a lot of Big Peat, this doesn’t have an off note, but it’s only starting to get complex. Hope that doesn’t continue.

Taste: Grass, anise, lemon balm, brine, double chocolate cookie

Alright, very, very herbal. I described the standard and the 2014 Xmas version as being Caol Ila heavy. This has more of an early 00s (aughts) Ardbeg vibe to it, what with the chocolate and grassy notes. Which can’t be the case, since it’s from 1992, so it’s not from the amount of Ardbeg, rather it’s just the direction the different malts combined to create.

Suffice to say, this is more interesting than the nose by a country mile (not a country ham). Chocolate, salt, and herbal is a combination I’ve been enjoying from older Ardbeg from the aughts, and this mimics that (meaning it’s a time traveller and therefore a witch).

Finish: Black Licorice, butterscotch, dry apple, hay, cloves

Very dry, herbal, and fruity at the end. I enjoy the finish, but I like anise, so if you don’t, that’ll ruin your day. Good mix of fruit and spices and that rich butterscotch, though again, not quite as complex as the taste.

Conclusion: Spiced chocolate. This one wasn’t easy to review/score. On the one hand, no bad notes. It’s well crafted. The taste is complex. The finish and nose have slightly complex elements, but are well put together. On the other hand, from 10,000 metres up (that’s about 6,250 horses for the American readers), it’s not as complex as other 26-year-old whiskies.

I enjoyed this. Maybe not as much as other older Islay, but I couldn’t help leaning into my bias for spices and chocolate. I do enjoy grassy notes as well, making it a great combination. If that describes you as well, then this is a whisky you’d want to try, or just pick up.

Final Score: 84.

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.

Leave a comment