Great price for 21 year old scotch. It's quite a strong heavy taste but quite nice - enjoying it now.
18 year old Loch Lomond is $139.90 so the 21 year old price could be a price match.
Sláinte
21 Year Old Single Malt Scotch Whisky - Loch Lomond $89.90 Per Bottle @ Dan Murphy's
211
Related Stores
closed Comments
Considering the review of this whiskey on their own website states "would be happy to pay $100 not $140", and considering it is now $89.90 … I would say that this is a bargain.
can you even read insular?
18 year old loch lamond is $139.90, and this 21 year old is $89.90.$90 for a 21 year old scotch is a pretty good deal
The more you are stating is more than this deal yes, but still less than the RRP..
It's really not that hard to read.
"whiskey is not wine buddy, 21yr drops aren't necessarily better than 18yr drops."
- That's not true of wine either. Some years just produce bad grapes.
edit: deleted comment
ignore this ^^^
blended is crap (johnnie walker is blended)
single malt is the good stuff
"I don't know"….
then don't say anything… :p
Ok, I'll spell it out for you: In general, Single Malts are more expensive than Blended. There, lets all move on.
Singles are what give blends their flavour.
Singles can be good stuff, or they can be shyte. They're more polarising - everybody's taste is different. I'll go a good ballsy Islay or Skye single, but wouldn't bother with a limp-wristed floral/fruity highland single.
A good blend will mix single malts to balance the different flavours in a way that isn't possible with the straight single.
A crap blend will mix whatever's left over or is reliably available cheap off the still, and turn it into something horrible.
JW Blue (and Black) get a lot of their smoky peaty flavour from the Tallisker single malt that's in the blend, but with other more subtle flavours that Tallisker doesn't have. You'll pay a lot more for Blue than you will for straight Tallisker.
Writing all blended whiskies off as "crap" is denying yourself some very fine drinking experiences. Also, assuming all Johnnie Walker whiskies taste as bad as their Red is a bad mistake.
that's not true, take Johnnie Black for example, its a 12yr old blended, even though I'm sure you might be able to find a 12 yr old single malt for cheaper, most 12 yr old single malts will cost a lot more. Guess its the label/name/reputation that counts…
cach8's post = power(power(facepalm x ∞, ∞), ∞)
No.
Personally I like single single single malt. It all depends on what you're in to, and can afford.
http://www.winesaver.com.au/idetail.php?i=244422 have it for $181.22
I might pop by and get a bottle myself
Never heard of this brand - and I've tasted 14 better known single malt scotch. Anyone knows what it tastes like?
The preferred brand of whiskey by Tintins close friend Captain Haddock!
haha… yeeh! I saw the comic strip with this in it :D
oh and for tasting notes… http://www.whiskyfun.com/archiveapril11-1.html#070411
at normal price, it was one of the cheapest 21yo single malts you could get….. but rather ordinary. It was replaced by a 18yo
oh… and JW Green is blended from single malts and damn good - but that instead from DM because Diageo have stopped making them
EDIT: by ordinary I mean crap
delete me
I'll give this a miss. Nothing good has come out of that distillery.
Lagavulin 16yo is one of the best scotch whiskeys in the world and costs less than this!
If you have far too much time on your hands have a look at http://www.maltmadness.com/
To be clear, my neg is because a clearance price on a whiskey that was never worth $90 is not a bargain.
well said, and i got downvoted to hell because i was getting to this. i'll see your neg, and upvote you one.
nope, what you said was just stupid mate. Atleast gargle here is justified in his neg.
No, you got negged because you failed to provide an example of something that was cheaper and yet better. "getting to it" is hardly the same as providing a concrete example.
i wasn't the one who posted the so called 'bargain', i criticised it for its potential lack of actually being a bargain. so if i do that, i'm supposed to do all the hard work and research and the original poster not? wow wonder what site this would turn out to be if this were the case.
i re-read my initial 2 comments on this thread and i think they are as valid as any. i do drink single malt so those comments weren't based on nothing, even if i didn't cite a reference website.
however, well done to the two of you for contributing nothing to the discussion.
Well, if you insist you are right and everyone else is wrong, then don't let us stop you.
So it's a bottle that's old enough to vote, but is more likely to be at a party. This is good?
not even on sale LOL
if anyone buys this thinking they are getting a bargain I should post up all my junk on ozbargain
please don't post your junk on ozBargain. There are kids here!
Great 21 bday pressie. Was gunna get last time, but DM oos =(
IMO the whisky is a 7/10.
Each persons taste is different.
A 21yo single malt at $90, grab it and have a crack.Just thought I would post prices of a few 21 year old single malts and answer a few questions
Single Malt 21 year old
Dan
Glenlivet - $229
Glenfiddich - $213
Glenfarclas - $13921 Blended
Royal Salute - Chivas $159
Johhny Walker XR $149Insular - yes you are right whiskey and wine are quite different - once in the bottle whiskey does not change (a great deal) where as wine ages over time and can get worse or better with age. So a 21 year scotch has been in the cask for at least 21 years.
Cash6 - almost all single malts are more expensive than blended - blended is a cheaper way of making whiskey. Both are nice depends on what you want.
Garglebutt - Lagavulin is quite a nice drop but not the best I have tasted - but you are quite right to say it's YOUR favorite.
It does rate 88 points at http://www.whiskyfun.com/Loch-Lomond.html
We are having a whiskey night next weekend - 7 mates all bring a single malt bottle and we all have a taste. Will be taking this along so the boys will let me know what they think.
Please note I like to drink my whiskey but I am not an authority on them :) (16 different ones atm)
this 21yo is not rated 88 points…. a different scotch from the same distillery is -> Old Rhosdhu 24yo 1979/2004 (46%, MmcD Mission III, 498 bottles)
the 21yo is rated 2/5 stars and 71 points
ops my bad
from the web pageLoch Lomond 21 yo (43%, OB, +/-2005) Colour: full gold. Nose: porridge and pecan pie, toasted oak, liquorice and cooked strawberries. Gets then dirtier, with notes of old clothes, cabbage soup and a little burnt tyre. Oh well… Mouth: a little better, with some caramel. A lot of caramel (sweet, not dry). The oakiness is a tad prickly. Strawberry jam, a little pepper… Distinct notes of violets (bonbons). Finish: medium long, on caramel and pepper. Comments: not as bad as it sounds. 72 points.
Violets? Cabbage soup and burnt tyre? Do drinks reviewers really think most people can take them seriously when they write such self-important gumpf?
Absolutely agree that taste is a personal preference but Lagavulin is an undisputed top scotch whereas Loch Lomond is quite the opposite. Of course Lagavulin is a very peaty scotch so if that is not to your taste it won't rate as highly for you.
As an aside, there are plenty of younger scotches I would chose over most of the 21yo ones you mention. I bought a bottle of 21yo Royal Salute from Chivas and it was incredibly disappointing (thankfully I only paid $100 for it in Japan). Anything from Laphroaig or Ardbeg is going to be a safe bet, even the 10yo's.
Key message is that age is usually the worst way to pick a scotch whiskey.
is this actually some kind of sale or did you just buy this whiskey, happen to enjoy it so thought it belonged on ozbargain?