Some classic Ardbeg notes here, including the typical peat, along with a haunting charcoal presence that is reminiscent of oceanic driftwood embers (theres the toasted American oak!), vanilla pod, pine needle tea, allspice, aging cedar wood in a well-used sauna. There are also less prominent notes of black pepper and caramel nougat with peanut. Very nice. But lets not forget cigarette ash in an ashtray (Nat Sherman MCDs rather than more common brands with additives). Im reminded of the old Peat Reek Raw Cask series from Blackadder (an independent bottler).
The low ABV runs slightly hot for only 46% but not overly so. Does that mean its fairly young? Yes, most likely, but Scorch doesnt have the telltale mescal/banana note of an excessively young spirit. Charred barrels come through. The resulting smoke isnt all that strong when compared with full strength Ardbeg Day releases, or other especially peaty Islay drams. The palate has a nice, fat savory note that vacillates between smoked salmon and deviled ham, depending upon how I smack my tongue. But you cant have salmon without a touch of lemon (in this case dried lemon zest). Theres a phantom note that reminds me of old Ardbeg Ten releases from the early 2000s. Tannins from some fresh ex bourbon casks are also noticeable, along with a Honduran whole leaf cigar wrapper, and unsulfured molasses. Allusions to Blackadder Peat Reeks, as well: the good ones, not off bottlings. Who knows, but Im fairly sure a few were Ardbegs, especially the really old ones. How well I remember floaty sediment in the bottoms of bottles that took guts (or madness) to swallow. Of course, there is no sediment in Scorch; Im merely reminiscing about how the whisky shares its most bombastic of flavors with the aptly titled raw cask Peat Reek series, which was touted as being old school. The finish brings cigarette ash and new tire rubber, along with that classic smoked peat of all things Ardbeg. Speaking of which, the smokiness in Scorch tastes more old school than most special releases over the past eight years. This said, the finish is barely medium in length. At the death, my tongue is left with a phantom note of black pepper that creeps toward the tip. Any time a whisky moves around in my mouth like that, I enjoy it. Why? Because thats kinda weird in a cool way. Often, older scotches are the ones that take a walk on the wild side. No Need for Crocodile Tears I guess in the final analysis, I might as well compare Scorch with Ardbeg Ten, as well as with Ardbeg Uigeadail. Its worth buying one or two bottles of Scorch if the opportunity arises: drink one, and save the other for the 2030s when industry standards for whisky will most likely have fallen even farther than they have since 2011. But if you cant find a bottle of Scorch, theres no need to shed crocodile tears. You can come out ahead with some of Ardbegs official bottlings, which still taste quite special to me. With this in mind, lets get down to whats what. The first question that naturally arises is whether Scorch is better than Ardbeg Ten. My answer: That depends. Ardbeg (thankfully) keeps to its time-honored tradition of varying batches of its ten year-old peated scotch whisky. If you buy an Ardbeg Ten in 2021, it wont taste the same as my favorite batch, which was released in March of 2014. To say the March 2014 batch was yummy is an understatement. These days . . . Ardbeg Ten is not bad at all, and it certainly holds its own against any other Islay peated whiskies in the same price range. A bottle of Scorch is far better than the last few years of Ardbeg Ten releases, however. But is it better than the March 2014? No, I dont think so, if memory serves. But who can find one of those in 2021? Im fairly sure it had some older whisky in it. Isnt that often the rationale as to why a certain batch hits a home run out of the park? Well, at least that has been the case with Ardbeg for those elephants that remember. Because back in the early 2000s, I became accustomed to Tens with some wonderfully mature Ardbeg whisky blended into the batches that was far older than a mere decade. Moving right along . . . is it fair to compare Scorch with Uigeadail? Well, its true that Uigeadail would technically be more accurately compared with the Committee edition of Scorch (both have significantly higher ABVs). Be this as it may, I still think its fair to make the comparison, at least in the sense of ones pocketbook and the time required to search for a bottle of Scorch. Plus, there are the additional factors of market availability and price. Uigeadail is quite a bit cheaper than Scorch. It often tastes younger, however. And it hasnt been aged in charred casks, either. With these drawbacks mentioned, I still would be fine with a bottle of Uigeadail if I didnt feel like fighting hoards of Ardbeg fans for a chance to own the latest special release, or venturing into the online world of auctions. Theres something to be said for such a zen-like form of restraint, especially when supply is down, and demand is up, up, up
a market dynamic that inflates prices. Come to think of it, dragon slayers embody the virtues of wisdom and prudence, if Im not mistaken. This begs the question, What is the dragon in this case: an admittedly delicious smoky whisky, or a corporation that breathes sparks of desire into consumers minds until they MUST HAVE the broth?
