Did an online tasting of nine James Eadie whiskies last Friday, not a duff one in the bunch. Their ‘Trade Mark X’ blended whisky was exceedingly good for a blend, and all the single malts well worth the money they are asking for them, the cask strength bottlings were simply superb. I really rate the whiskies that James Eadie are selling, a fine independent bottler.
It's been an unfortunately LONG time since I made time to sit down and watch a Ralfy review. Sort of like coming home again after a long absence, it just feels comfortable here. Glad to see you're still going strong Ralfy. God Bless.
I found a James Eadie 10 year old Ardmore in a shop in New Jersey a couple of years ago. They also had a blend from JE. I haven’t seen it anywhere else around NJ and it was really the only unusual bottle they had.
Hi Ralfy, Thanks for the review. This one is not easy to get hold. As an introduction to James Eadie it is well chosen by our Ralfy. Need to look out for Hames Eadie next time I will visit my local whisky shop. Cheers from a pat-pal from Germany
congratulations for the usual splendid reviews. I have a bottle of James Eaddie's Glen Ord 9 year old sherry oloroso finish and find their selection of real sherry casks to be second to none. great product
Picked up the exact same bottle from Luvians in Cupar and can't wait to try it. I had a James Eadie Caol Ila 13yrs 56.5% recently and was very impressed.
Ralfy, I came across your 500th review the other day. I really hope you’ll do something similar for your 1000th, it was a lovely video with a great soundtrack! Best, Jack.
Hey Ralfy! Thank you for having us with you on this journey. Once I've joined you I wouldn't want to miss your guidance, which I do really appreciate. Any chance I met you in one of the pubs in my favourite city when I lived in Glasgow 1997/98?😉
I always enjoy your consistently excellent, honest, and informative reviews. I drink and enjoy scotch that has been "developed" and "finished". Of course, the mileage can vary. (I remember a dreadful marriage of Caol Ila and rum.) BUT I am becoming a bit ambivalent about developing and finishing. I think of the resulting liquid as "designer" scotch. An honest competently made "new make" gets tarted up until it bears little resemblance to the liquid that came out of a particular still on a particular day. It seems that we are bringing the scotch to the drinker rather than the drinker to the scotch. One problem I am starting to have with "finished" scotch is that I am getting a bit tired of the increasing ubiquity of sherry. To me it is weird to think that the scotch industry is keeping the sherry industry alive. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Ralfy! I recently tasted and bought an Ardnamurchan bottled by James Eadie and it's deliciously good as well. I have to hunt down this Ardmore too now 😊
Wow.....a myriad of flavour notes going on there Ralfy! Love the passion with which you describe your whiskies my friend; keep them coming, as even the good lady wife is taking an interest (she's getting me a bottle of Arran 10 for my birthday bless her - I tell her, it's all down to Ralfy and his generously shared knowledge) 😺.
Ardmore Traditional Cask (old bottling) is a pretty darn competent malt. The US version at 46% used to be one of the better buys on the shelf for NAS. The new bottling isn’t as nice, but that’s the trend. You rarely get more for your money as time goes by.
I've heard you talk about poor casks and their prevalence today at so many distilleries, have any of your reviews broken down the differences that make up good quality casks? I'm also curious about the handling of casks, once they're finished performing their first functions, before becoming containers for whisky. Bourbon casks from the U.S. are broken down and shipped, are they treated beforehand in any way for the voyage? Are any of the casks sourced in Europe shipped whole, and the wood staves either dried or rinsed or otherwise doctored in preparation for use?
We launcht our "Oerfrysk" single malt whisky a week ago...and wonder when it is tasted by connaisseurs, like you are... I have a question: what do you think about Bourbon casks that are shipped to Scotland in fractions? what happens with the taste: the wood is drying out and the taste and the nose is blowing away!.....and the same happens with sherrycasks like PX and Oloroso!
Cheers Sir Ralf any chance with your contacts you can get hold off a bottle of that Glenallachie MT Turbo (heart cut /Taking the piss😂) What a chase I had trying to get hold off that bottle. It would rate a Rant & Billy will be happy either way I'm sure plus you would have a treat at a fair price.
I believe cask strength means cask strength! You can not add a wee bit of water to remove nip as you said at 10:30. Please tell me if I am wrong or correct this as many are confused by what should be simple.
. . . cask strength is either full natural strength in cask at bottling,. and also, It can be reduced slightly with water for presentation quality, and remain cask strength. Bottlers need some flexibility as some 'cask strength' whiskies are simply too strong causing flavour distortion.
Totally off topic, well maybe not, because of course its all about quality..... Springbank is basically unobtainable in Asutralia unless you're willing to spend AUD$300+++ , but I managed to get a Campbelltown Loch today, & wow. I'm getting the references to the usual comparable suspects. I do have a Kilkerran, and its beautiful, and I love the Glen Scotia's. I can now begin appreciate the Spingbank hype. Quality Quality Quality.
Ardmores 12 year old distillery bottlings used to be pretty good , shame they stopped producing them and their output seems really limited at the moment
He re-set his counter down by about 5. Why he would do this after 950 reviews is beyond me, but alas what he says is what matters. Let's be honest ratings don't really mean anything. Someone simply recommending me a bottle is worth more than a thousand ratings online!
I had a bad bottle of Ardmore that made me commit the greatest sin, down the drain........forgive me but I was naked and afraid😂 Ill give it another go on this offering.🎉
"I'm hugely impressed by this, I'm giving it 84..." sorry Ralfy, but the malt marks lose their significance if they don't reflect your personal feeling towards a whisky at all anymore. Trying to objectify a subjective scoring has unfortunately led to a scoring system where neither disappointment nor enthusiasm seem to have any effect on a mark and where I even after having watched the whole video just don't feel inclined to go on that treasure hunt inspired by your review. Of course, scores are not everything, but they add to the feeling that you are living and breathing whisky - or at least they used to do that.
Totally! But, given the price hikes that often accompany a ralfy vlog, he's trying to limit such speculation and send a message. Mark apart, he's clear endorsing this one.
@@paintspot1509 no, that's not how it works. Of course I listen to the review but the score should be like a balance sheet of the review. Now if the review shows Ralfy to be endeared by, even enthusiastic about a whisky, how does a score of 84 or 85 reflect that? Right, it doesn't, because Ralfy has decided to objectify the scores - but that counteracts their whole purpose. When he gave 92 to Glen Scotia 15 a few years ago, we all knew that this was probably about 3-5 points too high. But from the combination of review and malt mark we could recognize and appreciate that this was a malt whisky so different (from others as well as from many mediocre Glen Scotias of the past) and quality-driven that there must be something special about it which led Ralfy to being this enthusiastic about it. With a similar review today but a mark of maybe 85 (if it's a sunny day) we still would appreciate Ralfys review, but would we really care to check out the whisky as much as before?
I don't really get the reason of this change of scale in malt-marks. All the references your affectioned viewers built over years following you are gone. 85 doesn't mean anything anymore. What's the advantage? To use slightly smaller numbers? You haven't even expanded the range, idk like we have 100pt scale why not start from 0. But no, if anything it's even more compressed now 80-85. Sorry if I sound harsh but I'm really disappointed.
I would like a 1 to 5 star rating with quarters in between. It is a bit confusing now. I've been here for years and we are all friends but i understand the post. I also understand the "rebuttal" and respect it.
