During the exploration of whisky, which led to me starting Road to Dram, I made many choices. The main one has always been which bottles to include in a certain part of the journey. Last week, I revisited the Port Charlotte 10, the bottle I chose and reviewed back in 2024. Today, I review the one that I did not pick, the Lagavulin 16. While I have taken time to see how the experience accumulated in the past years shaped my taste – through the Revisited Series – I have not stopped to look back at those bottles I left on the shelves or, in some cases, unopened in my collection. Time to change that with a new series called the Fork in the Road, which will be a companion to the Revisited reviews moving forward.
Lagavulin 16 – Diageo’s fan favourite?
Starting with a review of the Lagavulin 16, I address the biggest omission among the bottles I picked in my early reviews. It is one of those single malts which is on the radar of casual drinkers and whisky lovers alike. For traditional Single Malt drinkers, it holds a place as one of the original bottles in Diageo’s Classic Malts of Scotland collection. Its connection with Parks and Rec’s character Ron Swanson made it a household name even among casual Scotch drinkers, especially in North America. Discussing Islay whisky without touching the whisky-scene cachet that Lagavulin 16 has is close to foolish.
To be completely transparent, back in 2024, as I was reviewing peated scotch, I thought long and hard about grabbing a bottle. As iconic bottles go, this one sits right at the top of the list. Ultimately, what drove the decision to skip this and instead buy the Port Charlotte 10 was the specs and the transparency of information.
Why I skipped it
My experience with 43% ABV malts, inevitably chill-filtered, had been generally underwhelming. More often than not, pleasant or even very good aromas on the nose failed to translate into an equally immersive sipping experience.
And then there was the question of transparency. Diageo, like many legacy single malt producers, sticks to a philosophy of revealing as little as possible about what goes in the bottle. Looking at what new distilleries like Ardnamurchan do, with their in-depth production info available to all, makes this approach feel antiquated. But more than anything, it creates a distance with the drinker.
As a new drinker exploring whisky, I wanted to be able to relate my tasting notes to production decisions. Considering Bruichladdich provides significant detail about its production, and especially ageing, picking the Port Charlotte 10 over this was an easy decision. But was it the right one?
Blame it on premiumisation
I didn’t skip Lagavulin 16 back in 2024 due to price, but I would be lying if I didn’t admit it played a role. Before the pandemic, at around €55, this was a great value whisky for its age and origin.
Post-pandemic, prices jumped and feelings towards Lagavulin 16, at least among whisky enthusiasts, soured somewhat. It all goes back to Diageo’s decision to drive the premiumisation of its single malts. With the obvious victim being the price/quality ratio. When COVID-19 hit, demand for whisky spiked. Diageo hiked the Lagavulin 16 price to €90-100. I certainly wasn’t pleased. There is little doubt the strategy backfired – the suggested retail price has again been tweaked and is now around €70. Does this bring everything back to pre-pandemic value levels? Time to review the Lagavulin 16 and see.
Lagavulin 16 year old
TL:DR: It could be so much more if it wasn’t for the 43% ABV and caramel colouring
Score: 5/10
Specs
Price paid: received as a Christmas gift, usually available around €70-75 at the time of writing (July 2026)
Batch: L4037CM014
ABV: 43%
Natural colour: No
Non-chill filtered: No
Casks Used: Not officially disclosed – commonly believed to be mostly ex-Bourbon American oak ageing with some (possibly re-fill) ex-Sherry European casks
Tasting Notes
Colour: As this is one of the “mit Farbstoff” bottles (for the non-German speakers: with added colouring)… the colour is artificial, so I shouldn’t even spend time discussing it. But there is an issue of transparency here. This is a dark single malt. A colour usually associated with deeply Sherry-cask influenced whiskies. Will that hold in the tasting notes, or is it just window dressing?
Nose: Quite mild, not as intense as I remember. Peaty, but a well-behaved peat at that: campfire, some iodine and even a light floral touch. Some maritime brine and wet pebble beach notes. Very sweet after that: vanilla, caramel, Demerara sugar, ripe apples, a touch of tropical fruit. Very faint spice -ginger and white pepper. Pleasant, but lacks the complexity I am looking for in a 16-year-old whisky. And no sign of a clear Sherry influence to be smelled.
Taste & finish: The 43% ABV is very noticeable, with a slightly watery mouthfeel and short taste. The peat is more intense and definitely more medicinal and ashy. Some brine. The malted barley, vanilla, orchard fruit and caramel. The colour now feels like a swindle – if there is any Sherry cask influence, it is timid and hiding behind everything else. Pleasant but unexciting. The finish is relatively short, with the sweet and maritime flavour appearing briefly but disappearing in a flash, leaving just the dry taste of smoke.
Score: 5/10
I thought hard about this score. But in the end, I cannot justify anything above a 5/10. I sat down with the Lagavulin 16 three times for this review. Every time I put the glass down after writing my notes, the conclusion was the same. I could easily skip this bottle in favour of a number of Islay and non-Islay peated malts in my collection.
The best I can say of the Lagavulin 16 is that it is an inoffensive take on Islay. It’s like one of those people you meet at parties, nice, affable but a bit flat. Someone you move on from when someone more exciting crosses your path. The age is evident on the peat notes, intense yet rounded. But there is little complexity, with limited ageing notes, and, once the peat retreats from its initial punch, it is a very sweet whisky – something I am not a fan of overall. Dilution is a big part of this. I have little to no doubt that an extra 3% ABV and a lack of chill filtration would make this better.
*Scores are based on the scoring scale used by Dramface, slightly modified to allow half-points
Does the quality match the price?
If I had been asked this a month ago, I probably would have said yes. Part of me recognises that even with all the noise around price, a 16 year old Islay at €70 is not badly priced. But the market is changing. Again. So it would be fairly priced…if it were integrity presented. And the ones changing the benchmark are another large spirits conglomerate: Suntory. Laphroaig just re-launched its 15 year old: a 46% ABV, natural colour whisky. It is priced at €75. For €5 extra, I am reaching for the latter. Seems like Diageo cannot catch a break with its pricing decisions.
Add to that the lack of transparency coming from the caramel colouring and lack of production and ageing information, and it should be no surprise that I would not spend my hard-earned cash on this.
Follow your taste
Was skipping the Lagavulin 16 in favour of the Port Charlotte 10 back in 2024 the right choice? An 8 against a 5 is a clear enough answer. It is no knock on the quality of what comes off Lagavulin’s stills. It is very much a critique of how they decide to market and bottle that liquid.
Does this mean anyone who loves Lagavulin 16 is wrong? Absolutely not. It is a matter of taste. But follow your taste, your gut, and don’t let the crowd dictate it for you. Being true to your taste is what keeps whisky a passion rather than peer pressure.
After writing my tasting notes, I always find it interesting to look at other opinions. Here are a few other reviews of the Lagavulin 16. I enjoyed:
If you have enjoyed this content, please share a comment below and consider supporting the cost of this blog via the button below
