Talk:Laphroaig distillery

An acquired taste

I removed the part about it being an acquired taste, as that just isn't a necessary truth; I liked it on first taste, and I know others who also loved it right from the start. To say that it is an acquired taste is not very objective and thus not very suitable for an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.207.100 (talk • contribs) .

I disagree. It is commonly an aquired taste. Not everyone thinks so, but most I know of certainly do so, and the website of Laphroaig says so it self. Maybe it could be reworded into that it is often an aquired taste? vidarlo 12:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I kind of find it hard to believe that anything at all in any encyclopedic article should be described as "an acquired taste" as this is a very individual thing (in other words not objective). It should also not matter whether or not any company wants to market itself as making something which is an acquired taste. At best this should be a parenthesis or some small note. I also wonder why the thing about putting a drop of water into the laphroaig isn't under "Tasting Notes." Maybe "Taste" and "Tasting notes" are too similar to even deserve a division in this case? I mean.. I don't have that little booklet thingie that comes with the Laphroaig with me right now, but I seem to remember I thought the same thing when I read that, and I also think the text in this article is either the same as or at least very similar to the text in that booklet... Someone should rephrase stuff a bit I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.216.197 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2006‎ (UTC)

Of course opinion doesn't belong here. JIMp _talk·cont 23:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Appointment by HRH the Prince of Wales

I added to the article and deleted the bit about the special appointment by HRH the prince of wales. that's the sort of crap they put on just about all scotch bottles and means little. i seriously doubt charles makes too many appointments with the laphroig folks. -R. fiend 01:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Prince Charles has said the Laphroiag 15 is his favorite dram, and he has had special bottlings made for him. —MJBurrage 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince Charles is still a frequent visiter to Laphroaig and i know this because i myself live in Laphroag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.168.12 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2006‎ (UTC)

See the Royal Warrant page: only five whisky producers have received the warrant (out of which one has been withdrawn). tsavola 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He may well be, but I agree with R Fiend. The British Royal Family doles out these "accreditations" as a means of justifying its existence, and currying favour (freebies often - for such a rich family, they're especially fond of freebies). --MacRusgail (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Freebies maybe, but it should be noted that the casks gifted to the Prince of Wales are auctioned off generating a huge amount of money for charity. It's also worth mentioning that there are various environmental and conservation conditions that must be met by Laphroaig to retain their royal warrant.194.72.120.131 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Aged in Jack Daniels casks

On a visit to the distillery in 1998, I was told by the guide that Laphroaig is aged in Jack Daniels casks. I think this deserves a mention, but not sure how to word it myself. Camillus (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (a Friend of Laphroaig).

I believe it is currently made in Maker's Mark casks. 160.79.193.5 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)sdf

ABV?

In the trivia in mentions that something was reduced from 43% to 40%. Now I'm pretty sure that's ABV but some clarification would be nice. --Cuitlahuac 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's ABV. 40% is the minimum allowed in the legal definition of scotch whisky (and I changed the article to reflect that; it's a Scottish standard, not a "worldwide" one). FiggyBee 15:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

POV?

There has been a recent edit that replaces Only Ardbeg has even stronger peaty taste with this monstrosity: Only Ardbeg is believed to perhaps have a stronger peaty taste.

Strength of flavour is not a POV issue; it's a matte of fact, surely. If not, the fact that it tastes peaty at all must also be classified as POV and we might as well decide to scrap the flavour part of whisky articles. However, since much of the point of reading an article about a given whisky is to read about its flavour, I suggest that we revert this change. Anyone with me on this? -- Strib 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument, Strib. I agree. Klmarcus 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (perhaps derived from the copy on a whisky label, and thus not so reliable) is that peatiness is something that can be measured objectively (e.g., in ppm). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Re Edits of Tasting Notes

I removed the bits likening Laphroaig to the flavour of TCP, Chloraseptic, and arson.

TCP and Chloraseptic were removed on the grounds that a) no references were provided for these extreme views, and b) that drinkers familiar with the flavours of TCP and Chloraseptic are unlikely to have any dependable taste buds left. (I have been told but canna confirm that Chloraseptic has a more lingering afterbite.)

Arson was removed on the suspicion that it was inserted by a Cutty Sark drinker who was arson around.

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

By special appointment by HRH

I see discussion above as to whether this appointment to HRH the Prince of Wales should be mentioned in the article. It seems some editors disapprove of the Royal appointment system.

Regardless of personal feelings, the facts (as I understand them) are that the appointments are a long-standing practise, that they are publicly documented, that they do carry a certain amount of prestige in traditional circles, that it is untrue that practically every Scotch whisky is "by royal appointment".

Also that an appointment is NOT a device for getting free booze for the castle. (Although even if I'm naive in believing this and it were shown to be true, that revelation would not disqualify the appointment from being included in the article. It would actually make a more interesting article, IMHO.)

Accordingly, I think the information does qualify to be included. Comments? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Johnstons of Laphroaig Distillery

"The 'Johnston' brothers were actually McCabes, of the Clan Donald, who changed their names following the failed Jacobite uprising, and settled on the Isle of Islay."

In the article on the Laphroaig Distillery, it states that the Johnstons were originally McCabes of the Clan Donald. I believe that this is incorrect on two accounts. First of all, McCabes were part of the Clan MacLeod of Lewis, not part of Clan Donald. Secondly, the Johnstons were originally MacIains from Ardnamurchan. The name MacIain means son of John, so logically we get Johnston. For confirmation of this, see <http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/smws/laphroa2.html>. For a list of Clan Donald Septs, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Donald#Septs_of_Clan_Donald>. For a list of Clan MacLeod of Lewis septs, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacLeod#Septs_of_Clan_MacLeod_of_Lewis>

Gaelteach (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, their own stated history states otherwise. Granted, this could be propaganda and/or marketing, but i'm not sure your assertion overcomes WP:OR; until there's something more substantial, we'll have to maintain their story. Quaeler (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Laphroaig website has been updated and the reference to McCabe has been removed. See discussion below under title McCabe.--Cejohnston (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the beautiful hollow by the broad bay

References for translation -->[1]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

McCabe

Hi Chris,

I can confirm that I am a direct descendant of the family that founded Laphroaig and have official birth,death & marriage records that confirm my descent.I have also conducted a DNA test that has confirmed that I am not a McCabe but rather a MacDonald.(http://genforum.genealogy.com/johnston/messages/9227.html) Another family member who can also trace their ancestry to the other side of the Laphroaig family tree has also returned the same DNA test result.

The post on Wikipedia that I edited (and you subsequently reinstated) was sourced to a forum post that the author has since retracted.

I can confirm that I have reinstated my original edit and have also added another source reference.The author of this source is the worlds largest collector of Laphroaig and has published the book 'The Legend of Laphroaig' which supports my claim that my ancestors were not McCabes.This book can be purchased through the Laphroaig website & at the distillery itself.

Laphroaig are well aware of the fact that the Laphroaig Johnstons were not McCabes.At this point their website has not been updated.However I would expect that at some point the distillery will update their own website.

Therefore I feel that I am justified in editing the incorrect information on Wikipedia and have provided sufficient evidence to support my edit.I also feel that it is extremely important to ensure that information on wikipedia is corrected when additonal information becomes available.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this issue further.

Kind Regards--Cejohnston (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I respect that and I understand, however that information will need to be sourced, as the website presently counts as a source. Without it, it would appear to some as WP:OR and/or WP:COI. I am not the most skilled at sourcing, perhaps someone here can help you with that, or we can get an admin to help you. Good luck! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply and the feedback. I do not feel that my edit contravenes WP:OR as the material added to Wikipedia has now been attributed to a reliable, published source namely to the website of the published author of “The Legend of Laphroaig”. The position which my edit advances is the same position as the source. The DNA results which have also been used as a source have also been published via a reliable source namely the Clan Donald DNA Project website. I also feel that in the context of WP:COI, I have declared my interest being a descendant and I am not attempting to advance my own interests via editing Wikipedia. I am simply seeking to ensure that an encyclopedia contains the most up to date published material relating to this subject. I feel that an element of common sense should also apply. A single source (Laphroaig website) states ‘The McCabe brothers being of MacDonald stock” without offering any evidence and then you have multiple published sources that have disputed this fact and have provided a volume of evidence to support their claim that the Johnston’s were not McCabe’s. I certainly welcome further discussion in relation to this issue and can be contacted on [email protected]Cejohnston (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can now confirm that the Laphroaig website has been updated and the McCabe reference has been removed.--Cejohnston (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

40% vs. 43%

From the article:

Until 2005, the venerable standard bearer 10-year-old bottling contained an alcohol percentage of 43%, after which it was changed to the minimal allowable by law percentage of 40%.

I have in front of me a bottle of Laphroaig 10 which is clearly labeled "43% alc./vol." Said bottle was purchased in late 2010 in California from a fairly high-volume retailer. It is extremely unlikely it has been sitting in inventory since 2005. So either the standard bottling has changed back to 43%, or the strength varies by export region. —Ryan (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am presently drinking a Laphroaig 10, purchased one week ago that is also labeled at 43%. Since it was purchased in Canada, I presume the 10-year expression is sold at 40% in Scotland (possibly the rest of Europe), and 43% in Canada and the US. Ducian (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Over the past two days, during a trip to the U.S., I purchased two bottles. One was 43% (a 750 ml bottle). The other was 40% (a 1 liter bottle, purchased at the duty free shop). So both strengths are available in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.217.192 (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)