i supposedly have a couple reserved, and i’ll probably pick up at least two if i can. [re. your post about reviews and reviewers, if you had panned it, i would likely have still purchased one bottle, "just to try it". however, between your review and Serge's, i feel confident enough in the overall quality of the bottle to invest in at least a couple.]

my favorite drams of late have been the Ardbeg Corryvreckan; 1999 and 2000 Laphroaig 7 year (Signatory); 2005-2008 Lagavulin 12 Special Release; and Caol Ila 8 (G&M), all cask strength. therefore, i think it’s safe to say that i’m often “in the mood” for something this powerful.

can’t wait for a taste; hope i get my bottle(s).
.rich

http://books.google.com/books?id=wyAAAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA589&dq=%22stock+bitter+ale%22#PRA2-PA585,M1

Note the analysis in the table of the secondary constituents in malt whisky. Unfortunately, if I read it right, PPM or other concentration of phenols – not strictly a co-product of ethanol I believe because not produced in fermentation – are not mentioned. So it is not possible I think from this source to get a sense of how peaty the whiskies were then. The authors do discuss some elements in the whisky of a phenolic nature. But they seem concerned mostly to determine if these elements were caused by direct fire (i.e., boiling the wash on direct flame) or by peat in the malt, concluding (correctly I believe) for the latter.

However, I can’t follow a lot of the science and I thought this piece might be of more interest to you, or others with a science background.

Note the many pieces of historical information, e.g.:

- sherry, reused sherry, plain wood and brandy wood were used to mature whisky circa 1900.

- whisky seems generally to have been sold at 5-8 years old. One sample was 15 years old and this seems to have been considered very old (although I am not clear if the distillers gave a representative age sampling to the scientists).

- whisky was being aged in different kinds of barrels from the same run, I would think distillers knew that different woods lent different effects as did different environments (e.g., the damp vs. dry warehouse samples)

- all Highland whisky was peated, some using peat and coke. Only some Lowland whisky dispensed with peated malt.

- the distilleries in the table are numbered, and I wonder if this was some type of official classification: if so it might be possible to know the names of the distilleries that were analysed, a number of which would still exist today.

Gary

there is another review online at

http://www.whiskyfun.com/index.html

Serge tasted it against another young Ardbeg. You might have to scroll down a bit as it is not yet in the tasting index he provides.