Blended
Scotland
The Johnnie Walker Blue Label story begins in 1987 when the Distillers Company launched Johnnie Walker Oldest. It quickly became known as Blue Label, for obvious reasons, and was a blend of rare malt and grain whiskies bottled without an age statement with stylishly retro packaging that echoed the 19th century Johnnie Walker bottle.
Though expensive, or perhaps because it was expensive, it proved an instant hit. By 1997, it was selling 50,000 cases globally. As a known currency throughout the world, it’s perhaps the ultimate gift whisky. You know you’ve done a good job or your in-laws approve when you receive a bottle.
Blue Label is drawn from unparalleled Diageo reserves of maturing malt and grain whiskies from across four regions (Highland, Lowland, Speyside, and Islay), including ghost distilleries, that Johnnie Walker has privileged access to. Whatever the exact blend, a consistent flavour profile that’s a beautiful balance of rich, slightly smoky, and fruity elements.
Fragrant with good body. Notes of oak, crisp spice, dried fruit, pastries. Berry fruits, aniseed, hints of cedar, a touch of spice and citrus.
Supple and balanced. Good toffee and hints of very wistful smoke. Chocolate, hints of grass and a good hit of malt.
Floral, oaky, good length, urged on by a plume of very well-kept, highland style smoke. Dried fruit, spice, honey.
One of the ultimate premium blends, Blue Label is a legend in its own right and will continue to be.
I do understand that an age statement can limit blenders, and that age doesn't always equate to quality. But for a premium product -- the most esteemed whisky in the JW pantheon -- to not have an age statement? That's just baffling. I like this whisky just fine; I have a bottle at home, but seldom drink it. Not because it's expensive (and JW Blue isn't remotely rare -- it's stupendously common, in fact); I have nearly 40 bottles of whisky and plenty of them are pricey. It's just not THAT great, especially for the price. If scoring whiskies strictly on a price-quality ratio curve, this one might just be at the bottom of the heap. It's six times more (roughly) than a bottle of JW Black, which actually carries an age statement and is a terrific blended whisky. Is Blue six times better? Is it even twice as good? Not to me. So I find it a good whisky but nowhere near good enough to be commanding these exorbitant prices. As for the experience, I don't pick up the smoke that the MOM tasting notes mention, but otherwise, I agree with them. Hints of spice and smooth fruitiness, with a decent finish, though you'd expect more from a blended whisky that urban legends say is a minimum of 25 years old.
A friend of mine and I have went through 3 bottles of this in the past 4 weeks! The very first time I drank it, it did not immediately impress me, but then again I was 22 at the time. Now I have come to enjoy it a bit more, but as others have noted, it is pricey. But it is good :) -Ginutis
Tried this recently. Is it good? Yes. Is it smooth? Yes. Is it worth the cost? HELL NO! You can tick all 3 boxes on their old 18yr Gold which is just as good in every way, except half the price. (If your lucky enough to still find a bottle) When it comes down to it, I may buy a bottle one day for my collection but I'd never spend that sort of money on a drink (that bad for the price) to actually drink. It's simply not that good.
received a bottle for my birthday nice and smooth but a funny aftertaste almost like the smell of creosote oil,anyone else taste the same
A non-age statement blend with a flavour that falls to pieces on contact with water, is readily available everywhere and priced at £129.73? I think this is a serious competitor for the world's most overpriced whisky. If you want something that's very easy on the palate you can do much better for a much lower price.
