On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Richard Williamson wrote: > Bias: I'm partial to being able to taste the whiskey, that is to say > that bringing me a peat monster will get you a polite "why, thanks...I > guess". > > So what does she bring? A peat monster, cask strength no less. > > Had with ice. > > Robust, in the way that eating a soggy charred branch is robust. That said... > > Nose: Not unlike the smell of a house that's burned down, and then > sat out in the rain for a couple days. Hints of leather (musk) and > apple. > Initial: Apple much more noticeable. The peat is, on the other hand, > noticeable by its absence. Sweet, not sweat. > After: Peat's back, and he brought his friends. > > Actually, if it weren't for the aftertaste (a bit peaty, in case you > missed that bit), this wouldn't be bad. See my bias statement above. > I'm probably overstating it. > > If anyone is in the Columbia, MD area in the next ... (looks at the > level in the bottle...judges...) ... ten months or so* and would like > to sample it, ping me and we'll set someat up. > > rip > > * to compare: I will go through a bottle of Aberlour 15 or Glengoyne > 17 in ten weeks, give or take. If you are still reading this... the > peat lingers a bit, too. >
rip, Did you intend this for the off topic list and blow the address? Best, R.E.F. P.S. I refer to those types as "make your eyes bleed" scotches. Not my preference. ---- www.crydee.com Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
