Talk:Laphroaig
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Scottish Islands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of islands in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
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.
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)
- 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)
Prince Charles is still a frequent visiter to Laphroaig and i know this because i myself live in Laphroag.
- 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)
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
