Like I always tell before judging a dram from the blended whisky category, I am not a fan of malt and grain whisky blends. And that’s what Lauder’s Blended Scotch is, so my palate is biased towards other whisky styles, such as malt, rye or pure pot still whiskies.
Lauder’s brand is owned by international Scotch whisky blender, MacDuff International. Their brands include Grand Macnish and Islay Mist blended whiskies. Latter being one of my favorite blends, Islay Mist Deluxe is quite enjoyable and Islay Mist 12 year old is actually pretty good.
Quite soon after distilling of whisky was made legal in 1815, the original blend was developed by Archibald Lauder during 1835, in Glasgow, Scotland. It even won several gold medals in international competitions which are marked in the bottle still be seen today on the
Lauder’s is a blend of unknown Highland, Lowland and Speyside malts and grain whiskies. Aged in Ex-Bourbon oak casks.
For Lauder’s credit I must say, this is quite a character. Surprisingly strong, especially in aftertaste which usually is the Achilles heel of blended whiskies. Too bad I just didn’t find the palate enjoyable.
Lauder’s, like most blends, has been marketed as very smooth blended whisky. I don’t think it’s smooth. And I say this in a good way. I always love finding big characters, even harsh whiskies as long as they have taste. Too bad Lauder’s Blended Scotch just couldn’t fit into my palate.
Check out my articles about:
Johannes seems to not like grain, but also doesn’t recognize that even 100% malt are often aged in 100% grain whisky barrels, despite his not liking the dreaded “grain” whiskies. What does he think bourbon is, if not 51-100% grain….. and I hate to break it to him, but all whiskies are blended – even single malts – otherwise, they’re barrel strength or single-cask releases. Also not finding the rubber notes he claims to see and taste. Perhaps it was his bottle? Agree on the caramel, biscuit, creamy and butterscotch notes. Finish is light but lingering peat. A bit of pear mid palate.
Hi Scott, and thanks for your comment. You’re right when using the term “grain” with whiskies. But it’s usually the percentage of certain grains used, which affects the end product quite a lot. For example, if the whisky belongs into blended whisky category, but has a large amount of malt whisky in it, I usually tend to like it more than other blended whiskies. Whether it’s “grain whisky”, “malt whisky”, “rye whisky”, “bourbon” or some other exact category, those are just terms used to explain the expression. Each expression having its own recipe with emphasis on certain grains determining the category in question.
When talking about notes, it’s always a personal experience, a matter of taste. I might detect notes that nobody else detects, or some other taster might detect notes you and I never will. So yeah, I might have gotten rubber notes and nobody else did. I might not even get those notes next time I taste the same exact product. Because the notes are a combination of recipe, oxidation and state of mind of the person tasting the whisky.
I find it very refreshing! Too bad your taste buds cannot enjoy a relaxing, not over-priced Scotch.
Thanks for the comment Nancy. And glad to hear you’ve found an enjoyable whisky. Certainly price is not the reason I like or dislike certain whiskies. It’s always about the preferred category, recipe and mood. For example, there are quite a lot Irish blended whiskies you can get for a bargain, that I like. I also had some good Japanese blends I liked, before the prices for Japanese whiskies went too high. Teacher’s and Islay Mist are also among the blended Scotch whiskies I like.
Although majority of my liking comes from single malts, which are usually priced higher than blends, it’s just because I prefer malt whisky over blended whisky. But I do prefer rye whiskies as well, and those can be on the cheaper side. When it comes to prices, which are unfortunately high at the moment, I get most satisfied when I find a good cheap whisky.