Comments on: Ever had a “bad” whisky?

By: Paul R. Potts

Paul R. Potts — Tue, 04 May 2010 15:11:24 +0000

I have not tasted more than perhaps a total of fifty whiskies in my life, and I’ve purchased fewer than 25 separate bottles including a number of mini-sized bottles. But of these, there is only one that I can’t drink. It’s the McClelland’s Islay.

I’ve tasted and enjoyed a number of other Islay bottlings including Laphroaigs, Lagavulins, Bunnahabhains, and Ardbegs, so I don’t think it is a matter of just hating the style. It is reasonable on the nose, and in the initial flavor, but has some kind of a bitter, metallic after-taste that actually upsets my stomach and makes me feel queasy for the rest of the evening.

The McClelland’s Highland and Speyside aren’t stellar, but I consider them to be drinkable, especially considering the price point. There is something wrong with the Islay, though. The cask that went into this should have been dumped. I’m told it is probably a young Bowmore. It makes me very nervous about the prospect of tasting any other Bowmore, which is probably very unfair to Bowmore.

By: Chris from Greece

Chris from Greece — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:17:03 +0000

A bit late as I just discovered this very interesting post.

The worst whiskies (OK blends excluded) I ever had are (in no order)

1.Bowmore 12yo “Enigma” (aroma was OK but taste awful) & new Bowmore 18y.o.(too soapy), I disagree with others opinion about the “Mariner” and the old “Darkest” which I like
2. Jura “Superstition”
3. Longrow Tokaji finish
and a special bottling for LMDW in France of Edradour (can’t remember details)

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:48:00 +0000

Solomon2, maybe it was something you ate? I don’t think that Canadian Mist can make you sick with one shot. (Unless alcohol in general makes you sick.)

By: Solomon2

Solomon2 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:41:08 +0000

After a shot of the bottle of Canadian Mist I purchased 2 weeks ago I felt quite ill. That’s a “bad whisky” to me.

By: John Lamond

John Lamond — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:44:06 +0000

As a number of people have said, there is a difference between personal taste and whisky that should never have been bottled because of inherent faults.
Managers make spirit to the best of their ability within certain parameters (mostly driven by accountants). What spoils the whisky tends to be the storage, either the wood or its location.
I agree with those who thought the Thai whisky was disgusting and likewise, the early Mackmyra should not have been bottled. Some of the Japanese whiskies bottled in the 1970s and ’80s were very coarse. You can argue that everybody has to learn sometime, but these were whiskies which I poured down the drain. Around 1992/3, I tasted an 18 year old Mortlach bottled by Gordon & MacPhail in which the wood was so dominant that the whisky was overpowered. The casks(s) should have been bottled about 5 years earlier.
I heard of a cask of single malt due to go into a blend of Mackinlay’s which had been spoilt by a nail and was marked for destruction, but inadvertently blended with 100 or so other casks. The sour taint was still there. A micro blending was done again and the taint was still apparent. The blend was eventually sold off to a supermarket for B.O.B.
Several independent bottlers bottle their whiskies too young – the pressures of cashflow interfering again in maturation. There is nothing wrong with the whisky, apart from the fact that its flavours haven’t fully melded together yet.
One or two old whiskies were disappointing because of their age – the whiskies were worn out and their flavour had died.
I am a fan of Haig Dimple or Pinch. I bought a bottle at auction (1951 bottling – got it relatively cheaply at the end of the auction) which I used in a class I was tutoring. It had oxidised, all its flavour was gone.
As John said, the distillers are much more aware nowadays of what is happening inside the cask and blenders are much more careful about what goes into the bottle, so what we drinkers are offered is in much better condition than might have been the case 30 years ago.

By: Sjoerd de Haan

Sjoerd de Haan — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:56:36 +0000

I don’t know if it was bad whisky or just way too old, but I tasted a sample of a 50 year old Springbank once. That was terrible. It tasted like old moldy wallpaper in a room without any ventilation.

Luckily it was a free sample, since it would likely have cost me the price of a bottle of good stuff…

By: Oliver Klimek

Oliver Klimek — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:57:43 +0000

When I just reviewed my tasting notes, I came across one whisky that I think would qualify to be mentioned here. After all the comments about “bad wood”, this specimen was just the oppisite.

It was a Linkwood 1996/2006 from Dun Bheagan that tasted solely like sugar water. Could this have been a dead cask ? I love Linkwoods so much, but this was one major disappiontment. Luckily it was just a sample.

By: Tim P

Tim P — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:11:16 +0000

I would say my least favorite whisky was the Longrow Tokaji 10 year old. I thought it tasted like soy sauce, and I just hate soy sauce.

Several other people I’ve talked to really liked it so I think all this bad whisky talk comes down to personal preference 99% of the time. The other 1% may very well be just bad wood, as David Stirk said above.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:32:48 +0000

John, thanks for the reassurances on the newer Wasmund’s. Like the first reply, I too had a bad experience with an early batch. I think it was either batch 2 or 3, very early on. Spotted it at The Party Source in Bellevue, KY a couple years back, and decided to give it a go. Very, very raw tasting. Tasted sort of like kerosene smells, with lots of wood, and not much character. Definitely the worst whisk(e)y I’ve ever tried.

Still, even then there were hints of promise, and to hear that Rick has improved his product considerably is definitely refreshing news. I always like to see the little guys make out. I’ll look for a later bottling next time I make it to a Binny’s in Chicago, as that’s probably the closest place to me (western Michigan, now) that’ll stock it.

By: Robert Rentsch

Robert Rentsch — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:56:41 +0000

Only one that I considered “bad”, and that was the Loch Dhu black whisky. Of course recognizing that it was being discontinued I bought several bottles on closeout for about $20 a pop. Sold em a few years later for around $200. So this “bad” whisky was actually quite good to me.

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:43:01 +0000

To me “bad whisky” implies bad tasting spirit. We all have an idea of what a particular whisky brand is supposed to taste like, mainly from past experience and from reading.
I have tasted malts over the past decade or so and have sampled a few thousand malts .
My bad whisky experience came from a respectable bottler -Cadenhead and it was their 19 yr Edradour bottled at cask strength that came in a green glass bottle. Having tasted Edradour before I had “visions of sugar plums and raisins” prior to tasting this malt. In reality however, the main taste on the palate was that of “Camay Soap”, with the malt “lost somewhere in the background”! It was soapy water with spirit!
I suspect someone washed their hands with Camay soap and let the “wash” get into the spirit.At any rate it was a “tainted” malt- the worst disappointment in any malt, ever.

By: David Stirk

David Stirk — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:09:20 +0000

As an independent bottler myself I will be careful what I say here, but, having said that…

The very worst whisky I ever tasted was a Linkwood owned by Cadenhead’s (I was their cask selector/brand ambassador at the time) – it was vile, like baby vomit and mold and obviously I rejected the cask. My successor later came up to me at a whisky fair and said ‘try this’. It was the same Linkwood but gone were all of the off notes and instead a rich, port and malty whisky was in the bottle. Cadenhead’s had re-casked the Linkwood into a fresh Port pipe. I have always maintained that bad whisky in good wood = good whisky and good whisky in bad wood = bad whisky.

I am wary of certain bottlers and certain practices – some independent bottlers have got so big that they are incapable to monitoring each and every cask and inevitably there will always be the errant cask that sneaks through (I remember a Teaninich that I bottled that I was later not happy with – thankfully that was quite a while ago).

When it comes to producers/distillers, really there should be no excuse. I do recall a Craiglodge bottling from Loch Lomond that I threw on a fire – I was actually surprised it didn’t either put the flame out or create some sort of magical fireball that put all watchers into a nauseating trance.

It is important to remember though that one man’s poison is another man’s perfume. Take for instance the flavour of rubber and/or sulphur – some folk will instantly rubbish a whisky that has even the slightest hint of rubber while others love it.

As an independent bottler, you can only bottle what you like.

By: Andre

Andre — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:53:54 +0000

well..not to beat a dead case, but going back to the Bowmore Darkest, I have read the following comment on Whisky Magazine Community View Topic (www.whiskymag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1846)

On Dec 8 2004 at 11:19 PM Harry wrote: “(Bowmore Darkest) ..it used to be great stuff, then was terrible stuff, and now is OK, but not great. Too bad, really”

My point is: what about “batch variability” ???? May be a great subject for the near future

By: Lew Bryson

Lew Bryson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:43:30 +0000

It’s true what John says: I did like the Sonoma Cutrer finish Woodford Master’s, and still do. It’s a light, slightly fruity bourbon that nice on a hot afternoon (like today, actually, and I might just knock the level down a bit). But I can see where some might not like it. I’m kinda with ya on the WT Sherry, far as that goes, Steve.

But bad whisky? I had a sip from a really musty bottle of Old Forester that was my dad’s from the 1970s; hardly fair. But Tangle Ridge…whuff, what a mawkishly sweet whisky. Had to spit it out. Still the Zero Mark on my whisky scale. Although the sip of “Glob Kitty Special Blend” Scotch whisky I had at the Frankfort airport was exceptionally horrid.

By: David K.

David K. — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:29:46 +0000

I bought a Balmenach cask strength from an independent some time ago (distilled in 1979, can’t recall who the independent was). I like cask strength whiskeys, but it was 3-4 more peppery than any Talisker I’ve had, with little to no malt sweetness. It just tasted like a fire in your mouth. Even cut with water (significantly), it was still bad. I never had hated a whiskey until then…