Comments on: Review: Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition 1992

By: Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition 1993 | cocktailista.com

Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition 1993 | cocktailista.com — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:47:57 +0000

[...] is a smoother whisky than last year’s phenolic monster, more delicate while still carrying plenty of briny, peaty notes that Lagavulin is so well-known [...]

By: Drinkhacker.com » Review: Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition 1993

Drinkhacker.com » Review: Lagavulin Distillers’ Edition 1993 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:07:29 +0000

[...] is a smoother whisky than last year’s phenolic monster, more delicate while still carrying plenty of briny, peaty notes that Lagavulin is so well-known [...]

By: Edoc

Edoc — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:51:42 +0000

Last night I tried the 1991 Distiller’s Edition against the basic Lag 16. I was a bit surprised by the results: I preferred the basic Lag 16. The things I like about Lagavulin are far more prominent in the basic Lag 16, and more muted in the DE.

By: Christopher Null

Christopher Null — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:05:36 +0000

Edoc – Have had the basic 16 (not in a few months, though) and actually find this one even bigger, but yes it does have some sweetness from the Pedro X that the basic Lag lacks…

By: Edoc

Edoc — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:22:14 +0000

You should also try the basic 16 yr Lagavulin for the sake of comparison. The distiller’s edition is softer (I have the 1991 Distiller’s edition), with a bit more complexity. While it’s absolutely true that this is a heck of a smoky whiskey, but I like that it has a slight sweetness that adds smoothness and balance. It’s probably my favorite whiskey (Midleton’s being my other fave).