balblair 97 2nd Release or Old Pultney 17

[albo]

Simple question, which of the above would you get and why?

I'm thinking of treating myself, these are both about the same price, interested in peoples view.

Thanks

[Quaich1]

I personally haven't had the pleasure of either but I noticed Jim Murray's comment about the Pulteney 17 : "the whisky performs to the kinds of levels some distilleries could only dream of"..... and then gives it a 95 rating.
_________________
"Always carry a large flagon of whisky in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
W.C. Fields (1880-1946)

[chrisg]

I can say the Old Pulteney 17 is excellent, in fact i would choose it (just both are excellent) over the Old Pulteney 21 which Jim Murray named as the best in the world in the 2012 whisky bible.

Maybe i am missing something but i dont really know which expression of Balblair you mean by "balblair 9z 2nd Release ".

[albo]

[chrisg]

No problem i get it now. I havent had the Balblair 1997, 1st or 2nd release but going by other Balblairs i have had i wouldnt hesitate to give it a go. For example the 2001 was excellent, lovely clean fresh malty, sweet vanilla'd whisky with a touch of spice . I would imagine it will only be better with the extra few years in the barrel.

[bifter]

[albo]

[Innes]

I have had a few of the Balblair vintages including the 1997 1st release which was very good so i suspect the increase in strength can only make the 2nd release better.

The Old Pulteney 17 is also a great whisky and very much worth a try.

Both different and neither will disappoint i would say.

[albo]

[Quaich1]

[Brummie]

[albo]

[Mark]

I wouldnt advise quoting anything

I have gotten through a few bottles of the Old Pulteney 17, deliciously sweet, fruity and salty, it really is a whisky which improves with age.

[bifter]

[albo]