My argument wasn't "vaping isn't healthy" or "vaping is more harmful than cigarettes". It was "more research is needed", which each of those studies I linked support. Thank you, though, for proving my point in your attempt to build a lovely strawman to argue against.
The number of ingredients is irrelevant, especially since the idea that there are "at most" 6 ingredients is simply wrong: https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/10/07/vaping-unknown-chemicals/
A major area of concern for vaping is the fact that vaping generates much higher concentrations of nano-particles compared to regular cigarettes, and therefore may penetrate much further into the lung material (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/ and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210147). There are also concerns about contaminants, variations in delivery devices (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/), and other confounding factors that require a lot more research to ascertain the long term impact.
As for whether I have a study or information contradicting the conclusion that vaping is safer than smoking, it depends on whether you selectively ignore the parts of the studies that say "more research is needed" (because apparently that's an "ignorant take"), but searching for "peer reviewed articles electronic cigarettes safer than tobacco" returns these top results (I did not cherry pick in any way, and instead took the top results sequentially):
-
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2042098614524430: "In conclusion, toxicological studies have shown significantly lower adverse effects of EC vapor compared with cigarette smoke. Characteristically, the studies performed by using the liquids in their original liquid form have found less favorable results; however, no comparison with tobacco smoke was performed in any of these studies, and they cannot be considered relevant to EC use since the samples were not tested in the form consumed by vapers. More research is needed, including studies on different cell lines such as lung epithelial cells. In addition, it is probably necessary to evaluate a huge number of liquids with different flavors since a minority of them, in an unpredictable manner, appear to raise some concerns when tested in the aerosol form produced by using an EC device." Granted, it does go on to say that existing evidence shows that vaping is safer than tobacco, but clarifies that there still needs to be more research on some of the unquantified risks of vaping.
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469426/ This is an older study using a very small sample size. It focuses on e-cigs as a tool for smoking cessation, but also concludes "Similar to cancer risk, there are no published data describing the long-term lung function or cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes; ongoing surveillance, especially once e-cigarettes are regulated and standardized, will be necessary."
-
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129443 This study was primarily measuring how likely e-cigs were to get people to stop using tobacco, rather than comparative safety (despite the title). The conclusion makes clear that it is not known (at the time; this was 9 years ago) if e-cigarettes could be considered "safe": "Adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so."
I'm not sure what your Google search was, but its probably best not to cherry pick a single source to support your claim.
It is premature to declare vaping safer than smoking, as there is relatively little comprehensive research on the long term effect of vaping. The whole "vaping is safer" spiel is not that different than when doctors were paid to tout the health benefits of cigarettes: propaganda not based in conclusive science.
Advent Calendar Day 7: The Balvenie 14 Year Old - The Week of Peat
Balvenie distillery is a Speyside single malt Scotch whisky distillery in Dufftown, Scotland, owned by William Grant & Sons. One week a year Balvenie turns their production to making a limited run peated whisky. According to Balvenie's website, this practice started after distillery manager Ian Millar visited Islay. He ordered a batch of Speyside peat for the kiln and built a peat burner on the side ‘for, well, extra peatiness’ with the intent to experiment with their The Balvenie profile.
Due to the strong influence of peat, they separate the remaining low wines and feints, basically low-alcohol spirit, and store them in a tank until the following year’s peat week, so there is a year-to-year link between one peat week and the next.
It is bottled at 48.3% ABV. Other than that... I don't seem able to find any details about the maturation, coloring, or possible chill filtration process. Balvenie dedicated a lot of time to crafting a web page to highlight the history behind the making of this bottle, but they offer very little details on the bottle itself beyond their tasting notes.
Regardless, I was excited to try this. I've never had anything from Balvenie before, and I've recently become more interested in Speysides. I've only tried a handful of Speysides so far (the bulk of my whisky experience is focused on Islay so far), but my impressions so far have been very favorable. None of those have been peated, so this seemed like a win-win.
Nose: Canadian bacon, lemon, brown sugar
Palate: smoke, peat, vanilla, chili, apple juice
Finish: lingering burn and sweetness.
Notes: This was very disappointing. It lacks complexity, it’s a bit too sweet, and the peat and sweet that dominate aren’t even well integrated. It doesn’t taste actively bad, but I’m just not finding anything positive about this. Of all the whisky I've tried in the past couple of years, I can honestly say that I enjoyed this one least of all.
Score: 3.5/10
Scoring guide
0 - Undrinkable
1 - Awful
2 - Bad
3 - Flawed
4 - Below Average
5 - Average / Mediocre
6 - Above Average / Decent
7 - Good; a solid choice
8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day
9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions
10 - Mythical/perfect
Advent Calendar Day 6: Seaweed & Aeons & Digging & Fire 10 Year Old
From Master of Malt:
>“Seaweed & Aeons & Digging & Fire 10 Year Old Whisky hails from an undisclosed Islay distillery, with a quarter of its content having been matured in first-fill oloroso sherry casks. This whisky is known for its succinct name which gives a clear indication of its profile: straightforward, smoky, intricate, subtly sherried, well-balanced, and imbued with coastal characteristics. It is an ideal choice for those who appreciate the unadulterated nature of Islay whisky and prefer minimalist design.”
40% ABV.
Nose: Salty brine, bandaids, dark chocolate, seaweed baking in the sun.
Palate: lemonade, wakame, oyster shells, brine, peat, earthy loam, coffee.
Finish: Surprisingly thick with a strong chili and black pepper burn mixed with light caramel. The finish fades pretty quickly.
Notes: I’ll admit I was skeptical, largely due to the name. It just seems a touch… gimmicky. But it’s surprisingly good. None of the notes seemed out of place, and it definitely fit some of the themes in the name: I got clear notes of seaweed on the nose, and I did detect something in the palate that reminded me of heavy, fertile soil. Oddly enough I didn’t really get much smoke (there was plenty of peat, but I find peat and smoke to be rather distinct from each other), although perhaps the “fire” refers to the spicy burn on the finish? I have no idea what “aeons” would taste like.
I can’t say I’d seek out a bottle of this, but I would be perfectly content to order this at a bar or enjoy a dram if offered by someone who did buy a bottle. I think it is easily on par with other OB Islay 10 year old single malts.
Score: 7.8/10
Scoring guide
0 - Undrinkable
1 - Awful
2 - Bad
3 - Flawed
4 - Below Average
5 - Average / Mediocre
6 - Above Average / Decent
7 - Good; a solid choice
8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day
9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions
10 - Mythical/perfect
Yes, these are all part of an annual advent calendar released by Drinks by the Dram. They sell a variety of different calendars, including Scotch, World Whiskies, and Gin. Each day is a different 3cl sample.
Advent Calendar Day 5: Elements of Islay Cask Edit
Elements of Islay was launched by Speciality Drinks Ltd, now Elixir Distillers. Their Cask Edit release is a blend of single malt from an unspecified south coast Islay distillery along with a fruitier style from an unspecified distillery on the north coast. It is a naturally colored non-age statement whisky that’s been aged in first fill and refill bourbon barrels and sherry casks and is non-chill filtered. It is bottled at an ABV of 46%.
Nose: Smoke, vanilla, iodine, chocolate, brine.
Palate: Very smokey, wood smoke and peat smoke. Caramel, brine, creme brulee.
Finish: long, oily finish with salt and a maritime brine and a light caramel sweetness.
Notes: Smells like Lagavulin. The taste reminds me a bit more of laphroaig, but there’s a slight taste of something that reminds me very strongly of an artificial sweetener. I’m not saying that there’s a sweetener in it, but there’s something in there that just triggers that association for me. It’s a bit between an artificial glycerine sweetener and that aftertaste I get from sucralose. If it wasn’t for that sweetness I’d enjoy it much more. I don’t know if this is just a tasting note that hits me wrong, or if something is throwing my palate off. I didn’t alter my usual timing and routine for my whisky reviewing, so I don’t think it’s my palate, but I do wish that I had more than just the 3cl sample so I could try this again another time and see if I still get that saccharine note. As it is, I have to drop its score a bit.
Despite my dissatisfaction with the sweetness, it is a solid Islay whisky that highlights some of the best aspects (elements, if you will!) of Islay: peat, smoke, and strong maritime notes.
Score: 7.7/10
Advent Calendar Day 4: Kyrö Wood Smoke Malt Rye Whisky
Kyrö Distillery is a Finnish distillery that makes rye whisky and gin. The company was started in 2012, allegedly during a discussion in a Sauna. The founders appear to have kept a sense of humor as core to their identity, and their site (which is somewhat NSFW) has some pretty fun accounts of the company history, including a rather oddball introductory video.
They use Finland-grown rye for their distillation.
>Kyrö wood smoke is made from 100% malted finnish whole-grain rye. Following an old northern tradition the malt is alder smoked in a 100-year-old barn. The whisky is double pot-distilled and matured in ex-bourbon, French oak and new American white oak barrels, resulting in intense pepperyness and sweet notes of caramel and vanilla lifted by crisp alder smoke.
47.2% ABV. NAS.
I could not find anything on their website about chill filtration or color, but I did see some reviews saying that they use neither. I can’t validate those claims, so let’s take that with a grain of salt.
Nose: oatcakes, grapefruit, red licorice
Palate: Swedish fish (does Finland make their own version?!?), wax, almond, rye, pine, subtle campfire smoke.
Finish: A thick, oily mouthfeel producing tobacco and juniper flavors gives way to candied fruit mixed with a lingering tannic bitter note that eventually fades to a mild pine.
Notes: I am not sure what I expected from a “peated Finnish rye whisky”, but this… most definitely was not it. The nose also did not prepare me for the taste. I found the nose pretty inviting, if a little overly sweet (more licorice than oatcake by far). The taste, though, is very different. It was actually sweeter than the nose suggested, which is saying something, but there’s a lot of complexity on the palate. The finish was also surprising, changing the character from “eating booze-soaked candy in the forest” to “did I just drink whisky-flavored gin?”.
Overall, I liked this, particularly for the complexity and because it’s very, very far from any other whisky I’ve ever had, but in general it was far too sweet for me. I haven’t had a lot of grain whisky, but what I have had I’ve found a bit too sweet for my liking, so this is probably more of a personal preference thing than a deficiency in the whisky itself.
Score: 7.9/10
Scoring guide
0 - Undrinkable
1 - Awful
2 - Bad
3 - Flawed
4 - Below Average
5 - Average / Mediocre
6 - Above Average / Decent
7 - Good; a solid choice
8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day
9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions
10 - Mythical/perfect
Advent Calendar Day 3: Teeling Blackpitts Peated Single Malt Irish Whiskey
Teeling Blackpitts Peated Single Malt is an Irish whiskey from Teeling Whiskey. Triple distilled and then matured in a combination of ⅔ ex-bourbon and ⅓ ex-sauternes white wine casks. It is bottled at 46% ABV without chill filtration. There’s no mention of whether they use colors on Teeling’s site, but it is quite light colored and coupled with the lack of chill filtration I’m inclined to believe they don’t add color.
Nose: peach, grape must, peat, black pepper, orange zest.
Palate: Lemony, peppery, light peat, pineapple juice, light salt brine
Finish: Lingering light notes of pepper, mild dish soap, grilled oranges.
Notes: The nose is light and delicate. The flavor is also rather delicate. It’s a really nice mix of fruit and pepper in nearly equal balance. The peat is more of a backdrop. Part of Teeling’s marketing was that the triple distillation process removes some of the “medicinal” taste from the peat smoke; I initially dismissed this as marketing speak, but it really does seem to present the peat in a different light. I’m guessing that is why the peat falls into much more of a background note.
I really like this. It is a nicely light and refreshing dram, and I enjoy the contrast in the flavors. I’d absolutely try this again.
Score: 8.2/10
I think it depends. I've had a couple at 43% that didn't seem too diluted, like Laphroaig 10 and Caol Ila 12. I probably would prefer them a bit stronger, but its not objectionable at that level. Macallen 12 year double cask felt a bit bland to me, and it may have been in part due to the 43% ABV.
I've only had a couple that were above 55%. Most of them I alternate between adding water and drinking neat, except for a MacDuff IB bottled at 64.5%(!) that's just too raw at that ABV.
Yeah, I didn't love this one, but I didn't hate it either. The nose was the best part.
That's what I like about the advent calendar concept. I'm going to be trying a bunch of things i'd never pick on my own. If I find a handful of new drams that I enjoy I'll count it a resounding success!
Advent Calendar 2: Peat Bomb 8 Year Old
#Sample 2
I couldn't find much information about Peat Bomb 8 Year Old. According to the listing on Master of Malt it is from the Whisky Bombs brand. The blurb for this bottle is:
>Do you love whiskies that pack a big ol' blast of smoky brilliance? Then Peat Bomb is a single malt that's well worth a look! This expression is an 8 year old single malt from an undisclosed distillery on the isle of Islay, and as the name suggests, it's mightily peaty indeed. Earthy smoke, bonfire embers, simmering spice – it's all there and more.
It is bottled at 40% ABV. I could not find out if it is chill filtered, or if it uses artificial colors.
#My review
Nose: Apple cider, light shellac,faint peat smoke, Brunswick stew.
Palate: peat, smoke, raw hardwood, heavily charred bbq meat, burnt sugar, toasted chestnut.
Finish: thin, watery finish of lingering mixture of wood smoke and charcoal smoke. A bit like you had a wooden spoon, set it on fire, let it burn a bit, blew it out, and then used it to eat some soup.
Notes: When I first opened the sample I was immediately hit with strong peat, which was no surprise at all. What was surprising is that after letting it rest the peat on the nose became very subdued. Even more surprising was how all of that immediately went out the window once I tasted it; the palate, at least, absolutely lives up to the name.
If you don’t mind the peat it’s quite an easy sipper. Presumably this is helped by the low ABV; while the lack of alcohol burn makes it easy to drink, it also leaves it thin and, imho, somewhat disappointing. All bark with no bite, if you will.
Although there were a few notes I found somewhat off-putting (the raw hardwood and burnt sugar on the palate weren’t great, and the lingering char on the finish was borderline unpleasant), it wasn’t a bad dram (assuming you enjoy peat). Aside from the nose (which promised a lot more than was actually delivered) it was a bit simple, though, and the thin, watery consistency really hurt my enjoyment.
Score: 6.6/10
I had it shipped to the states. Cost me just a bit over $30 in shipping. They don't ship to every state, though.
Advent Calendar 1: Torabhaig Allt Gleann, The Legacy Series
Today is the first day for my advent calendar. I figured I'd try and write a review for each one (although I can't promise to publish them daily). I did cheat a bit and look at the list of what should be included, but there's a possibility that some substitutions will be made. That being said, almost all of these will likely be to be brand new to me.
#Sample No. 1
Torabhaig is the newest Isle of Skye distillery, opened in 2017. This makes it the second Isle of Skye distillery in 200 years of legal Scotch distilling. As a new distillery, they don't have an extensive library of releases yet and everything released appears to be NAS.
The distillery provides a nice amount of detail for their bottlings. The official description for this second release of Allt Gleann is:
>Our second release in The Legacy Series, Allt Gleann is named after one of two burns that feed the distillery. An evolution on the 2017 inaugural release, Allt Gleann introduces Laureate malted barley alongside Concerto, Safspirit M-1 yeast alongside Pinnacle MG+, and re-fill whisky barrels in maturation alongside first-fill bourbon barrels. There is a little more peat and added complexity compared to the 2017 inaugural release, elegantly showcasing the evolution of our spirit.
They elaborate that the finish is 80% First fill bourbon and 20% re-fill whisky barrels.
Spirit phenols are 77ppm, and whisky phenols at 17ppm. This is not information I've seen listed on other distillery sites (admittedly I'm still very new to scotch, so maybe this is more common than I think), but I think it's very cool that they offer it. This seems in line with Torabhaig being a new distillery with a focus on craft distilling. Accordingly, their bottlings are not chill filtered and they don't add color.
The second release of Allt Gleann is bottled at 46% ABV and has no age statement.
#My review:
Nose: Peat, ocean brine, orange, bowling shoes, wood smoke.
Palate: Early sweetness, then waves of peat and salt, then a spicy burn at the end. Vanilla cream, peat, salt, chili, and black pepper.
Finish: It’s a light finish that fades fairly quickly, but leaves a bit of a spicy chili burn, salt, and fruit.
Notes: The nose is intriguing. It’s salty and funky, but there are undercurrents that remind me of fruit, without being overtly fruity (if that makes any sense?). The nose reminds me of an Ardbeg 10 but with a lighter, fresher note. The palate is not complex. It’s very straightforward: mostly salt and peat. But there’s an underlying sweetness running through the palate that makes a really interesting contrast. This is a brash, young scotch that highlights two rather unsubtle flavors, peat and brine. While that sounds a bit unflattering, it does a pretty classy job of it. In a way it reminds me a bit of Ardbeg Wee Beastie: unrefined, raw, but with more sophistication than you might expect.
I enjoyed this dram. It's not something I'd reach for every day, but it is interesting and I'm glad I tried it. I'm looking forward to seeing more from this distillery.
Score: 7.2/10
Any time I see someone whining about seeing posts on a topic that they, personally, don't like, I upvote the post to add visibility, then block the whiner. Thank you for your contribution!
Hats off to the downvoter who read this and apparently thought to themselves "hell no! 556 million is a lot more than 3 billion, and definitely more than half of 8 billion!!!"
twitter is where most people are
Twitter is gone. There is only X.
According to Musk, there are 556m monthly active "users". A year ago Musk commissioned a study that found at least 11% of active users on Twitter were bot accounts. There's plenty of reason to believe that that percentage has only gone up, especially in light of the fact that there's been a significant exodus of users due to Musk's handling of the platform, and that at the time of the study there were about 368m users. So either 200m people who were previously uninterested in Twitter were so impressed by how Musk systematically made X less functional and more expensive, or bot accounts became massively more prevalant.
Regardless, with a global adult population of 8+ billion, in no world is 556m "most people", even ignoring the bots. Facebook has 3b monthly active users. Tiktok 1b. Instagram 2b.
As for the rest of the argument, the idea that the only way for extremist voices can be held in check is to politely engage them in rational discussion is sadly nonsense. They're extremists. They aren't interested in rational discussion. The only way to hold them in check is to deplatform them, whether literally or just by the old fashioned method of social ostracism.
I actually am a developer who works for a hospital. I wouldn't write articles or otherwise create materials discussing the "nitty gritty medical details".
Manuel Vonau
From his bio on that site (https://www.androidpolice.com/author/manuel-vonau/):
Manuel studied Media and Culture studies in Düsseldorf, finishing his university career with a master's thesis titled "The Aesthetics of Tech YouTube Channels: Production of Proximity and Authenticity." His background gives him a unique perspective on the ever-evolving world of technology and its implications on society. He isn't shy to dig into technical backgrounds and the nitty-gritty developer details, either.
So he's a marketing guy with possibly zero tech background beyond watching YouTube videos, who isn't afraid to discuss "nitty-gritty developer details" despite apparently not actually understanding them.
At this point, I think most people who qualify as merely conservative are Democrats. The Republican party in general has moved far right of "conservative" and well into "fanatical".
I was being a bit sarcastic, because season 1 was fantastic, but season 2 was (IMHO) absolutely terrible. I couldn't finish it.
altered carbon was a disaster
Personally, I loved it. I just wish they'd make a second season.
A limited release of High West Rendezvous Rye finished in both Tawny and Ruby Port barrels.
They had me at "port barrels"!
I'm hoping I can stay focused enough to do a brief review of my thoughts on each one. It won't be a full review, because I find that I can focus on trying to identify tasting notes, or I can focus on enjoying the dram, but not both at the same time. Given the sample sizes I'll be focusing on enjoying them :)
That holiday blend sounds delightful! I can't wait for my next trip to Europe; I feel like I completely wasted my first trip to the Whisky Exchange (except for the Laga Special Release 2021 the clerk recommended).
Lemmy: "All of the ways Elon mismanaged Tesla brought the quality of the cars down to the point where the brand's reputation is sunk. That hurt sales more than people not commuting to work."
You: "Look at all you on Lemmy saying how you don't need to own a car any more because you're using your car half as much!"
Anyone else have whisk(e)y plans for the holiday?
My wife got me this for the upcoming holiday season. Waiting until December is going to be hard! A bunch of stuff in here that I’ve never tasted before, including a couple (hopefully; actual contents could vary depending on availability/supply) that have been at the top of my “must try” list: Kilchoman Loch Gorm and Ledaig 10.
Are you planning on opening a special bottle (or two, or three, or more…) for the upcoming holiday season? I’d love to hear what you have in mind!
[Review] Ardbeg Anthology: The Harpy's Tale
The first entry in Ardbeg's new cash grab Anthology series, The Harpy's Tale has been matured for 13 years in rare Sauternes wine casks and married with classic Ardbeg ex-bourbon. As per Ardbeg standard, it is not chill-filtered, and no color is added. It is bottled at 46% ABV.
For my review, I drank this neat from a Glencairn after letting the pour sit 10-15 minutes.
Nose
The first thing that hits me here is a strong sweet undercurrent of sugar cookies, pineapple, and vanilla. Following quickly behind that is a mix of peat and a metallic tang reminiscent of copper. Following behind it all is a faint waft of ocean brine. Overall, it is very pleasant and suggest a complex spirit.
Palate
The nose does not lie. This is a complex spirit, and there's a lot going on with the flavors. At various points I caught strong hits of spice, including black pepper, coriander, cardamom and clove. There's sweetness there, a creamy vanilla mixed with hints of apricot, but not as strong as I expected after the nose. The peat is very strong, and brings with it some bitter notes that stay with you well into the finish. The seawater brine is here, too, as are some notes of pine.
Finish
I was disappointed at first with how quickly the finish dissipated, but halfway through my first dram the finish was lingering significantly longer. Pepper and spices mixed with vanilla coat the tongue pleasantly. However, they're joined by a not-so-pleasant lingering ashy bitterness that I find hard to ignore. There's also lingering peat, as well as raw wood that at times strongly reminds me of popsicle sticks.
Comparisons
I'm trying to include at least one comparison in my reviews since I find the tasting notes to be so subjective. Being able to use other bottlings as baselines for comparison seems a little more... useful? For this bottling, though, I'm not sure which would be the most appropriate Ardbeg to compare it to.
The Ardbeg 10 can be a good baseline for comparison for anything in the Ardbeg line, since it is part of their core line and has some very characteristic notes. The Harpy's Tale does fairly well compared to the 10, in that it is far more complex. I like Ardbeg 10 quite a bit, but it is fairly simple. Harpy's Tale is nowhere near as sweet, nor does it have the strong citrus flavor I associate with the 10. Both have strong peaty smoke, but the Harpy's Tale brings significantly more ashy bitterness with the peat. Though both are bottled at 46%, the Harpy's Tale does have a stronger finish.
Considering the price point and the complexity of the Harpy's Tale, Ardbeg Uigeadail is worth mentioning, too. I find Uigeadail to be much more complex than the 10, as well as a bit pricier. Harpy's Tale beats Uigeadail in both regards. It has a lot more flavors vying for attention, and is certainly much more expensive. However, Uigeadail just feels more... polished. Some of that may be the difference between cask strength and the 46% Harpy's Tale release. I think Harpy's Tale may have been better served bottled at cask strength. I'm not sure if it would have avoided the lingering ash-and-popsicle-stick finish, but certainly the $140+ price tag would have been more palatable if it were cask strength.
In the end, though, I think the main way that Harpy's Tale loses out to Uigeadail is that it is, well... just kind of all over the place. I find the various notes interesting. Enjoyable, even. But I'm simply not sure they work together. Certainly some of the notes seems to fight against others. Sometimes that works well, like the peat countering the sweetness on the palate. But in other cases I just don't think it works out. Uigeadail, by comparison, is a strong, polished whisky that builds a cohesive whole from the sum of its flavorful parts.
Conclusion
I was a bit hesitant to pick this one up, despite my general appreciation for Ardbeg. The only one of the special releases I've tried was Scorch (for the record, I liked it, but I also didn't have a lot of other heavily peated whiskies to compare it to). The reviews across the recent special releases have been pretty consistent in their criticisms: the uniqueness isn't justified by the premium price, even when the uniqueness "works".
I'm inclined to agree, including the Harpy's Tale.
Overall, I did enjoy it, and I am glad that I pulled the trigger on this bottle. It's interesting. I do enjoy savoring it and moving my focus from flavor to flavor in a way I can't with the other Ardbegs I've had (10, Wee Beastie, Uigeadail, and Scorch). I wish it worked better, though, and while I wouldn't turn down a dram offered to me, I also wouldn't buy another bottle. There are too many jarringly off notes, and the price makes me a bit resentful that it isn't cask strength. I have a suspicion, as well, that some of the unflattering notes are due to the watering down.
Whisky Review: Ardbeg Wee Beastie
Ardbeg's Wee Beastie is a n Islay single malt whisky aged a minimum of 5 years in a combination of ex-bourbon and Oloroso sherry casks. It is the youngest whisky regularly sold by Ardbeg, and I believe is also generally the cheapest. As to be expected from Ardbeg, it is not chill-filtered, and has no artificial coloring added. It is bottled at 47.4% ABV.
The bottle describes it as:
>Young and intensely SMOKY, with a rich explosive mouthfeel of CHOCOLATE, TAR, and SAVORY MEATS. Cracked BLACK PEPPER and sappy PINE RESIN on the snout.
Honestly, the idea of a cheap 5 year old whisky had me ignoring Wee Beastie, but I saw some surprisingly positive reviews and, in the interest of trying to learn the full range of Islay malts readily available in my area, I decided to pick up a bottle.
Tasting Notes
Rested 15 minutes in a Glencairn, served neat.
Nose
There's no subtlety to the peat, which should not be a surprise given the age and the marketing description. I also could detect hints of black pepper (a rare case where my senses agree with the marketing!), and also iodine. Behind it all is a tang like iron and copper. There's not anything sweet in the nose; it comes in strong and harsh, but not in a bad way.
Palate
The initial flavors are some of that sweetness missing from the nose. I tasted an initial hit of vanilla mixed with plum. That's quickly replaced with a massive wallop of peat and peat smoke.
Finish
Peat, smoke, more peat, and perhaps some salty vanilla cream at the end.
Comments
This is an intense bottling, and really surprised me. Despite the overwhelming peat there's a lot more complexity and depth to this than I expected. When comparing this to Ardbeg's 10 year, I actually feel like the Wee Beastie is the more complex spirit. There's a lot going on with it, even if that's mostly peat, smoke, and more peat. The 10 year is sweeter and much more of an everyday drink, however. Despite my surprise and appreciation for the Wee Beastie, I don't foresee myself reaching for this often. It's harsh, oily, and a massive peat bomb, as advertised.
That being said, this whisky is a great buy for the money, particularly when you are looking for a real punch of peat.
My first review (reader beware!): Octomore 13.2
First, an overly-long introduction! Please feel free to skip down to "Octomore 13.2: the actual review part" if you just want to know what I think; otherwise, you're in for an in-depth description of why I think whisky reviews are mostly crap. You've been warned!
I've been wanting to try my hand at a whisky review for a while, but honestly I find most reviews to be.... kind of confusing. Every time I try a whisky I diligently write down notes about the experience.
I spend several minutes carefully inhaling noseful after noseful, struggling to separate odors from the whisky into concrete flavors that I can describe. Once I've convinced myself that I've been able to extract "notes of ripe stone fruit" or something similar, I move on to tasting it only to once again wrestle with the concept of taking a flavor that my brain identifies as "whisky" and tease out multiple distinct components.
When I'm done, I take a few moments to try and actually focus on the whisky itself, which by this point it honestly feels like maybe I've neglected. I then look at my notes, trying to decide if I'm finally starting to get the hang of it, or if I'm just fooling myself.
Inevitably, doubt sets in and I resolve to "cheat", and compare my notes to the tasting notes of others who presumably know what the hell they're doing and aren't just bluffing their way through the process.
Instant regret. Every. Single. Time.
I never get it right.
Lagavulin's Offerman Edition? Instead of "Pungent, peaty, woody and spicy. Flavours of cocoa and sweet berry notes. Chocolatey and warming on the palate with a lingering and spicy finish," I got "copper and peach with bandaids. Tar, salt, and apples."
Lagavulin's 12 Year Special Release 2021? The distiller describes it as "Mild, drying and soon, wonderfully aromatic; clean, fresh and maritime, with top notes of sea air and Himalayan salt, supported by fragrant smoke-dried Lapsang Souchong tea, mineral salts and light cleansing salve. Beneath these lie drier notes of cocoa powder and dried seaweed, with a squeeze of lemon zest, this salty sweetness imbued with wood-smoke from a distant bonfire on the shore.". Me? I got "leather and peat with black pepper and sugar cookies."
Its enough to make me feel like perhaps I'm suffering from some rare genetic disorder that results in my only having a small percentage of the taste buds gifted to others.
Except... maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one trying to bluff my way through this. Maybe everyone else writing these reviews (or at least a large portion of them) is just, for lack of a better term... bullshitting their way through the process?
I started looking through reviews on whiskybase and other places, looking for patterns among reviews for specific bottlings. I haven't found any. One reviewer will call out the "strong notes of red fruit". Another will talk about pineapple, peach, orange and mango (none of which are red). A third reviewer will describe it as bacon and caramel.
Maybe I was onto something with this all being a bunch of bullshit? The more reviews I read, the more I was convinced. What else should I think when one reviewer describes the nose of Octomore 13.2 as "chic, blackberry, sweet dark fruit tones ... so sweet, honey undertones, heavy tar on a hot railroad", another says "leather and flavored tobacco, raisin bread, plums, dried figs. A note of peat smoke that is not too clear wafts over it. Seems naturally sweet, but not sweet yet," and still a third says "Honey, citrus and salty, dirty with cow sh*t on a farm land, grassy, tart."
So Octomore 13.2 is sweet, but not sweet, smells like fruit, but also smells like cow shit?
Then I saw a review where the nose was described as "precious stone, jasper, quartz, tourmaline" and the palate as " the impression of tasting diamonds".
Okay, that settles it. I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I've done some rockhounding, so I'm well aware that tasting rocks is a thing, but you cannot tell me that any scotch smells like jasper, quartz, and tourmaline and expect me to take you even remotely seriously. Okay, wait. Maybe I'm just being close-minded. Maybe I should sniff some of my rocks before judging, just to make sure. I'll be right back.
Nope. I just checked. My tourmaline smells exactly the same as my jasper. My quartz actually had a slightly iron smell to it, but that's still an iron smell. Not a quartz smell.
So, anyway, the gist of all of this is that I no longer care if I get it "right". Plus I'm no longer convinced that reviews that call out "tasting notes" are meaningful. What good does it do for someone wanting to try a new scotch if I tell them I taste campfire and oysters, but they take it home and taste strawberries and a chocolate-covered hamburger?
Thus, my first review.
Now that I've got all that out of the way, here's what I actually think about Octomore 13.2.
Octomore 13.2: the actual review part!
I'd be remiss if I didn't start by providing some facts about this drink.
Produced by Bruichladdich Progressive Hebridean Distillers, Octomore 13.2 is a "super heavily peated" expression of Islay malt at 137.3 PPM. It is bottled at near cask strength, with a 58.3% alcohol content. It is a five-year-old spirit that spent its entire life maturing in Olorosa butts from Fernando de Castilla, Spain. Basically, it's the same 100% Scottish mainland barley spirit from Octomore's 13.1, peated to the same level, but aged in the Olorosa sherry casks instead of the 13.1's American Oak casks.
Despite my skepticism over the traditional tasting descriptions, I still begin with smelling it. I poured it neat into a glencairn and let it rest for about 10-15 minutes.
My first impression was that this is very different than other whiskies I've had (I've tried most of the "standard" Islay malts from Laphoaig, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Kilchomen, etc. ). The nose is primarily sweet, although there's a strong wine note from the Olorosa casks. But that's too simple of a description. There's a lot going on in that nose. The sweetness could definitely be described as several kinds of fruit (I was reminded of plums and peach, for what little that's worth), but I also felt there were more "refined" sugar odors mixed in. Behind all of that were odors that were more inorganic in nature. The end result was a deep, nuanced complexity that had me sniffing repeatedly just to explore everything that was offered. After several minutes of just smelling this, I felt like there was still more that I could find if I kept at it. But at this point I was impatient to taste it.
The taste did not disappoint, and was considerably more complex than the already impressive nose. Honestly, this stuff is crazy. As the nose suggests, there's a great deal of sweetness, but there's so much more going on here. After the initial wash of flavors I kept getting strong impressions of salty water mixed with the other flavors, but without overwhelming. What I found most surprising was the smoke and peat flavors. Despite the "super heavily peated" 137.3 ppm, the smoky flavors were shockingly well blended with the other flavors. Where Bruichladdich's Port Charlotte 10 year uses the peat as a banner to wave in your face to remind you with every sip that you're drinking a heavily peated Islay malt, Octomore 13.2 uses that peat as a backdrop. It is undeniably there, but it doesn't grab your attention. Rather, you have to look for it, moving your focus away from everything else that's going on with the flavors. My original notes from my first tasting stated "the smoke flavor seems to bridge between the fruits and the salt," and I think that summarizes what I experienced pretty well.
The finish was a somewhat amusing experience for me, as this was the first time I was convinced I really tasted "chocolate" in a scotch. I also felt there were lingering notes of cinnamon, plum, and leather. Of course, after reading Bruichladdich's description of the finish, I was "wrong" as usual. I should be noticing "earthy peat notes com[ing] to the fore ... along with the fruit and the nutty aromatics of the oloroso casks." A "salty tang of sea breeze" was supposed to finish it all up. But after two drinks, I still have a lingering taste of chocolate mixed in with an oily brine. More relevantly, there's a very pleasant mouth feel that lingers for a long time after finishing.
My overall impression is that Octomore 13.2 has a tremendous depth to it, with enough complexity that I had trouble focusing on just one note at a time, instead of hunting around trying to tease out aspects of the overall flavor. The full maturation in oloroso casks provided a starkly different experience than I've had, even with other Islay malts finished in sherry casks. This is an entirely different beast than Kilchoman Sanaig or Ardbeg Uigeadail, for example, both of which spend time in Oloroso casks. Octomore is at a different price point than those other expressions, but in my opinion that's entirely justified. The more I drink of this expression, the more fascinated I become by just how much is going on with it.
Recommendations for peated whisky that isn't from Islay?
Anyone have some suggestions? Ledaig is on my wishlist already (if I can ever get my hands on some). What have you tried?
Bonus points for a good peaty, non-Islay whisky matured in sherry casks.
Homemade gardening robot that uses machine learning and a fresnel lens to burn weeds
Automated garden tech just got hotter.
Pepper Joe
Given how many "Pepper Joe'd" stories filled the Facebook and Reddit communities, I thought it might be a good idea to address this right off the bat.
Pepper Joes is a seed vendor that has been around for many years, and ranks right at the top for some popular search terms.
Legend has it that at one point they were a reputable seed seller, but the original owner sold the business many years ago. The current owners apparently outsource their supply from a variety of third-party growers, and their quality control is non-existent. Many people ordering from them receive seeds, grow them, and eventually find out that the seeds are not at all what they ordered. Most frequently they wind up being a pretty standard habanero, but random superhots or unknown crosses are also fairly common.
Other pepper communities have seen so many posts from people complaining that the seeds they bought from Pepper Joe's didn't grow true that it has become a meme.
There are many reports of their customer service getting argumentative with customers, refusing to acknowledge any responsibility or to issue refunds, although this doesn't seem universal.
Buy from them at your own risk.
Vendor List
I thought it would be nice to start a list of reputable seed vendors. Please feel free to list any of your favorites.
I've broken the list out into U.S. and EU sections, but some U.S. vendors may ship to EU countries, and some EU vendors may ship to the U.S.. If anyone has any good Asia-Pac vendors, I'll add a third section.
#U.S.
- White Hot Peppers
- Jimmy Pickles
- Chileplants.com
- Towns-end Chili & Spice
- Puckerbutt Pepper Company
- Matt's Peppers
- Refining Fires
- Sandia Seed Company
#EU
While I don't want to invite "name and shame" over bad experiences, I do want to call out one vendor that has earned a lot of notoriety. Pepper Joe is one of the most popular seed vendors, largely due to having excellent search engine placement. However, the original owner sold it long ago, and pepper communities are FILLED with people who bought seeds from them only to have them grow into something completely different (typically common habaneros).
We have a discussion thread specifically for Pepper Joe's.
My recommendation is to NOT buy from Pepper Joe's, ever.