Best Scotch Under $100

Yeah, sorry, I had trouble embedding the link… it seems to embed the [\url] part of the code in the hyperlink.

I was there last summer, and really enjoyed the visit… they seem to have a neat philosophy and are willing to do a lot of experimentation. For some reason I came away from the visit thinking that they were still independently owned, but it looks like Remy has owned them since 2012?

Who owns them isn’t clear to me, either.

Anyways, thanks for posting that extra info… [cheers.gif]

I’d say this passage from that link (without the “[/url” appended to the back end) pretty much clears-up any confusion I had on the matter:

Bruichladdich is not a peated whisky. This is now stated on the labels and tin. Any previous bottlings that contained peated whisky have been discontinued. Bruichladdich is now a peat-free zone.

However, we also distil some exceptional peated whisky, and this is now sold exclusively under either the Port Charlotte or Octomore labels.

Hi, really you can try , Ballantine’s 12 Years Pure Malt Scotch Whisky or McGibbon´s Premium Reserve Scotch Whisky

add Balvenie 14 aged in rum cask.

Has anyone tried Glen Grant 16?

I went to a tasting at Seven Grand a few weeks ago and it was pretty tasty stuff. Not peaty (good for me, much more my style) and I think it runs for 75 bucks or so. Been tough to locate though.

Yeah, the problem with giving Walker is that a more experienced whisky fan is going to be unimpressed. Give something really good and if its too esoteric they’ll still probably like it. I prefer to miss long than short personally. Goes for almost everything.

I came to this thread late, but I have to say, this is good advice. Neither I, nor any solid Scotch fan I’ve met, would be impressed by the likes of Johnnie Walker Platinum. Go long or go home.

Thats what happens when you drink labels and not the actual Scotch, enjoy your fancy names and labels because they make you a more educated Whiskey drinker than someone like me who only focuses on the Whiskey and not the really important label

There’s an interesting book by Thad Vogler, by the smoke and the smell, where he visits the both the independent distilleries and the corporate distilleries. Pretty interesting difference. Worth a read for those interested in spirits. Cliff notes are that whiskies like the platinum are mass producers in a factory like gallo while springbank is much more in charge of their entire production process. Does that translate over to the quality of the product? Well, that’s up to the consumer.

I think the problem is that most scotch drinkers have had a bunch of Johnny Walker products and most of us think that one of the worst bargains in town is Johnny Blue. Some others are rather rough hewn, though I’ll admit that I’ve had green and gold and found both to be fine drinkers. Given the reputation of Blue among most folks who like digging into scotch, the desire to jump into something like Platinum is not great. Since it’s a gift for a scotch drinker, not a personal purchase, a little “wow you did your research” is probably a better delivery than “Johnny Walker huh, thanks.” Only to later taste it and like it. You may well be right on the money with your suggestion, but it’d be like getting a wine nut a new Caymus offering. The initial reaction would be a polite smile and a thanks, and then the bottle would probably be set aside for a while. It might end up being a brilliant take on bordeaux in Napa, but when you’re gift giving, hoping reality exceeds expectations is a tough road to hoe.

Like Ryan I’d be tempted to give Lagavulin 16, which is dynamite and almost always in my liquor cabinet (though I’m currently out), but its massive peat and iodine profile is not for everyone. There are plenty of “scotch drinking scotch fans” who’d much prefer Dalmore 15 to Lagavulin 16.

Fun thread. For those HP 18 suggestions, I’d love your tariff, but that’s like $135 here.

Good lord I need to check thread activity dates.

I guess I’m in a minority here, don’t like JW blue at all, Laguvallin, Balvenie, even found HP 18 a but oaky. I enjoy Macallan 12, love Macallan 18, drink Glenfiddfich 18 to keep my hands off the Macallan 18, and I like d’Abundah. Dalwhinnie 15 was nice at the price. Will have to try the Ablemour mentioned upthread.

I’d be glad to get a bottle of JW Blue as a gift, would be awesome for regifting.

Lagavulin 12 is great, but more like $150 a bottle. There is a Lagavulin 8 for around $65 that I picked up but haven’t opened. The Lagavulin 9 Game of Thrones is quite nice and I’ll be interested to compare it to the 8 year version. But Lagavulin definitely has a style that appeals to some more than others.


Why not Lagavulin 16, also around $65-70? Or Talisker 10 around $50. Scotch has great deals in this price range.

Why not Lagavulin 16, also around $65-70? Or Talisker 10 around $50. Scotch has great deals in this price range.

I like both of those, and the Lagavulin 16 was already recommended. I was responding to a post that seemed to say he found the 16 a bit woody, so throwing out some other Lagavulin options.


Because it smells and tastes like a bbq pit? [wow.gif]

Seriously, I always wonder why winos who don’t care for over-oaked wine tolerate over-oaked/peated whisky.

To be honest, I haven’t had it in a while and I’ll have to re-try. But I have always liked some wines that have a strong oak signature, like traditional Rioja, Ridge and Silver Oak. Somehow in those wines the oak seems to me to be in harmony. Some other heavy oak wines I find very annoying. It’s similar with Scotch, at least with peat. I love Talisker but I found Ardbeg Uigeadail to taste like an ashtray.

I would call Lagavulin (very) peaty, but not particularly oaky especially when tasted next to whiskys of comparable age. That’s why (in terms of the original question) any of the Islay whiskys are risky since the buyer didn’t know the preferences of the recipient. But, if he’d known the recipient likes Islay scotches, I wouldn’t recommend the Lagavulin 16 or Talisker 10 since they undoubtedly already know them and likely have bottles in their cabinet.


We both should try it again; I haven’t had it in man years, but given my even lower tolerance for oak and smoke now, I’m pretty sure it would not suit my tastes.

It’s a bit of a button pusher for me: ultra-peated whisky, ultra-hopped beer, ultra-oaked wine.

BTW, I wouldn’t call any of the wines you listed (though Rioja is generic) overly oaked. Ridge and Silver Oak have “signatures”, mainly due to their American oak, but they are not (to my perception) overly oaked.