Isle Of Jura Superstition Whisky, 70 cl £22.49 @ Amazon Lightning Deal - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
111Expired

Isle Of Jura Superstition Whisky, 70 cl £22.49 @ Amazon Lightning Deal

£22.49 @ Amazon
Lightly peated with hints of smoke and spice Tastes of tangy cinnamon, ginger spice and honey with whispers of salty sea spray, rich coffee and roasted chestnuts Deep intense mahogany with glitterin… Read More
nietenteges Avatar
7m, 2d agoFound 7 months, 2 days ago
Lightly peated with hints of smoke and spice
Tastes of tangy cinnamon, ginger spice and honey with whispers of salty sea spray, rich coffee and roasted chestnuts
Deep intense mahogany with glittering sun rays
Firm and positive, yet forcibly mellow, strong accents of phenolic aromas, rich, sensual nuances of honey and marzipan
Perfect for Summer BBQs and Winter walking
2015 Silver Outstanding Medal Winner - International Wine & Spirits Competition
IWSC Awards Tasting Note: The floral rose sweetness of Turkish Delight, with the addition of honeycomb and aniseed, makes for a deliciously approachable yet well structured malt.
More From Amazon:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
nietenteges Avatar
7m, 2d agoFound 7 months, 2 days ago
Options

All Comments

(35) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Perfect for Summer BBQs and Winter walking

Ack I wanted to sip during Autumn leaf fall
#2
Personal favourite from the Jura range!
#3
This is a harsh tasting whiskey. The clues are in the description 'firm, positive, forcibly, strong'. Cold
#4
pigeonmount
This is a harsh tasting whiskey. The clues are in the description 'firm, positive, forcibly, strong'. Cold

Yes the clue is in the description - whisky.
#5
"Deep intense mahogany with glittering sun rays "
I'd never be able to respect myself again if I bought a product with that description. surely this can only appeal to a total merchant-banker

Edited By: quidstretchy on Nov 25, 2016 22:06
#6
NAS scotch...I'm not falling for it.
#7
pigeonmount
This is a harsh tasting whiskey. The clues are in the description 'firm, positive, forcibly, strong'. Cold





Not being man enough to enjoy the taste does not mean this is a cold deal.

Have some heat, although it's a shame I'm merely cancelling out this little boy's vote.
#8
This is pretty good, but not really a deal. Think I got a bottle of this for around the same money 8 weeks ago. Laphroaig is my fave, it is more peaty.
#9
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO
#10
The_Bounty_Bear
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO

Too many distilleries bashing out bottles of scotch as soon as they reach 3 YO to coin in the brand worth decent tasting well aged drinks from the same brand families.
#11
worthinger
The_Bounty_Bear
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO
Too many distilleries bashing out bottles of scotch as soon as they reach 3 YO to coin in the brand worth decent tasting well aged drinks from the same brand families.


Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?

This is completely different and better quality than other NAS whiskies such as Founders Reserve.



Edited By: MattyGr on Nov 26, 2016 18:02
#12
MattyGr
worthinger
The_Bounty_Bear
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO
Too many distilleries bashing out bottles of scotch as soon as they reach 3 YO to coin in the brand worth decent tasting well aged drinks from the same brand families.
Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?
This is completely different and better quality than other NAS whiskies such as Founders Reserve.

A blended single malt that could claim to be 13 but doesn't? Well that's a novel idea.

Maybe you misread something. Somewhere.

FYI - it has to be 3 years old to be called Scotch Whisky. If there's no age statement on the bottle assume it just turned 3.



Edited By: worthinger on Nov 27, 2016 05:23: .
#14
worthinger
MattyGr
worthinger
The_Bounty_Bear
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO
Too many distilleries bashing out bottles of scotch as soon as they reach 3 YO to coin in the brand worth decent tasting well aged drinks from the same brand families.
Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?
This is completely different and better quality than other NAS whiskies such as Founders Reserve.
A blended single malt that could claim to be 13 but doesn't? Well that's a novel idea.
Maybe you misread something. Somewhere.
FYI - it has to be 3 years old to be called Scotch Whisky. If there's no age statement on the bottle assume it just turned 3.


Or, rather than just 'assume it's 3', you could actually read up about it.

I don't think you understand how NAS whisky works.

Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old.

There will probably be a younger whisky in there as well which is why this is a NAS as the whisky age has to be the 'youngest'

Edited By: MattyGr on Nov 27, 2016 10:03
#15
MattyGr
worthinger
MattyGr
worthinger
The_Bounty_Bear
Expired . If you missed out there are plenty of far superior whiskies out there still on offer. Jura brand is not great IMO
Too many distilleries bashing out bottles of scotch as soon as they reach 3 YO to coin in the brand worth decent tasting well aged drinks from the same brand families.
Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?
This is completely different and better quality than other NAS whiskies such as Founders Reserve.
A blended single malt that could claim to be 13 but doesn't? Well that's a novel idea.
Maybe you misread something. Somewhere.
FYI - it has to be 3 years old to be called Scotch Whisky. If there's no age statement on the bottle assume it just turned 3.
Or, rather than just 'assume it's 3', you could actually read up about it.
I don't think you understand how NAS whisky works.
Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old.
There will probably be a younger whisky in there as well which is why this is a NAS as the whisky age has to be the 'youngest'


I think you'll find that I know exactly what I'm talking about and you are backtracking rapidly.

Got any evidence to support your claims? Claims that even the manufacturer doesn't make?

Whisky drinkers the world over put great stock on age. Although not a universal constant, the older the whisky the rarer it is and the more expensive.

Why would any distillery reduce the value on a genuinely aged whisky by using it to dilute a barely aged one when they make no claim to have done so? Just as you describe.

Drink away, if it's what you like, but this is just a method of filling market gaps when there isn't enough genuinely aged whisky to pull in revenue. Particularly prevalent tactic with some of the newly popular distilleries who just don't have the stock of aged whisky laid down. How many manufacturers have to predict market demand 10 or more years in advance?

Anyone involved in the industry will tell you - if the age isn't printed on the bottle you assume it's a 3 year old. Fancy bottle and poetic name does not a fine single malt make.
#16
Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do... You might want to look it up before making a claim in the future. Plenty of info on Google to back this up but the below is from Amazon. Oh and this won the whisky of the year 2012 for the whiskyshop.

Hints of honey and pine as the balance of peated and unpeated spirits is matured to perfection in ex-bourbon casks. The finest young and aged up to 21 years whiskies go into this mysterious bottle so there's a different flavour to explore with every drop. In Superstition, we wanted to produce a wild whisky that's as rich as our story and a testament to all the intriguing histories around the world, so we've added the ancient Ankh cross, a symbol of good luck in the western isles, to the front of the bottle.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jura-Superstition-Lightly-Peated-Single/dp/B01B8F3EOY

Superstitious! Meanwhile the older whiskys are between 13 and 21 years old. Superstitious! And Blackjack!

http://www.divingforpearlsblog.com/2013/06/single-malt-report-isle-of-jura.html?m=1

isle of jura superstition single malt, blend of 13 and 21 year old. Nose: spice, salted butter, sea grasses.
#17
MattyGr
Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do... You might want to look it up before making a claim in the future. Plenty of info on Google to back this up but the below is from Amazon. Oh and this won the whisky of the year 2012 for the whiskyshop.
Hints of honey and pine as the balance of peated and unpeated spirits is matured to perfection in ex-bourbon casks. The finest young and aged up to 21 years whiskies go into this mysterious bottle so there's a different flavour to explore with every drop. In Superstition, we wanted to produce a wild whisky that's as rich as our story and a testament to all the intriguing histories around the world, so we've added the ancient Ankh cross, a symbol of good luck in the western isles, to the front of the bottle.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jura-Superstition-Lightly-Peated-Single/dp/B01B8F3EOY
Superstitious! Meanwhile the older whiskys are between 13 and 21 years old. Superstitious! And Blackjack!http://www.divingforpearlsblog.com/2013/06/single-malt-report-isle-of-jura.html?m=1
isle of jura superstition single malt, blend of 13 and 21 year old. Nose: spice, salted butter, sea grasses.

I'm not interested in your third party websites - the distiller makes no such claim.

And mis-quoting to strengthen your argument is weak and juvenile - you say "of" the website you link to states "with".

Whisky is a matter of individual taste, what I am questioning is not wether or not someone might like this whisky - with or without the poetic BS - but the whisky industry's constant release of immature whiskies dressed as aged malts. It's a marketing ploy - no more and no less and appears to be most often used when a highly regarded, low volume, independent distillery is taken over by one of large distillers. It's ploy that works obviously.

It's still whisky.

Now, if you must continue insisting that this immature malt is a blend of 13 and 21 year olds - or even includes them - just provide evidence of such a claim from the distiller. When they first released this whisky it may well have been true, but the fact that they make no such claim on bottle, box or website means that IMO it's not the case for the whisky being sold now. Which is probably why it no longer says it on the current amazon selling page and you have linked to an old one.

And, even if a small % of actual aged whisky had been blended with this item - lipstick on a pig gets you a pig with lipstick on and no more. But another ploy that works obviously.


Edited By: worthinger on Nov 27, 2016 16:03
#18
I provided the evidence as you requested but unsurprisingly you don't accept it, just accept the fact that you were wrong and stop sulking. Obviously the 13-21 year age referenced on 10-15 websites are all wrong and you're right!

I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as they will bring you down to their level applies here.

You've clearly been proven wrong so have now backpeddalled and moved the goalposts, over and out!




Edited By: MattyGr on Nov 27, 2016 16:43: '
#19

The goalposts.

Edited By: worthinger on Nov 28, 2016 01:09: .
#20
MattyGr
I provided the evidence as you requested but unsurprisingly you don't accept it, just accept the fact that you were wrong and stop sulking. Obviously the 13-21 year age referenced on 10-15 websites are all wrong and you're right!

I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as they will bring you down to their level applies here.

You've clearly been proven wrong so have now backpeddalled and moved the goalposts, over and out!




Absolute nonsense. A couple of websites saying something that the distiller doesn't...but it's the distiller that's wrong eh?

The distiller's claims are the goalposts.

You couldn't make it up. Or there again, maybe you could.

(Have you thought about contacting W and M to tell them what whiskies they've put in this bottle, since - according to you - they don't seem to know?)
#21
worthinger
MattyGr
I provided the evidence as you requested but unsurprisingly you don't accept it, just accept the fact that you were wrong and stop sulking. Obviously the 13-21 year age referenced on 10-15 websites are all wrong and you're right!
I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as they will bring you down to their level applies here.
You've clearly been proven wrong so have now backpeddalled and moved the goalposts, over and out!
Absolute nonsense. A couple of websites saying something that the distiller doesn't...but it's the distiller that's wrong eh?
The distiller's claims are the goalposts.
You couldn't make it up. Or there again, maybe you could.
(Have you thought about contacting W and M to tell them what whiskies they've put in this bottle, since - according to you - they don't seem to know?)

This is how it works with NAS whiskies, the distillers tend not to add this detail to the description even though they often use old/rare whiskies. It's also because they use a selection of young whiskies 3-6 years old as well as whiskies 12 years + and the overall outcome is a blend of various ages malts. To presume these are all 3 years is extremely narrow minded, also just because the distiller doesn't add the exact age of each malt it doesn't make the distiller 'wrong'.

This is one of the better NAS whiskies out there, but as with anything the ages of whiskies used is irrelevant, it's all down to the overall taste, an aged whisky isn't necessarily a superior whisky.
#22
My Jura Superstition has next to no text on , which is inkeeping with other NAS malts, although it does reference the inclusion of aged malts which fits with a 13 year and a 21 year old inclusion. These will be balanced with younger malts around 5-6 years old.
#23
Whisky12345
worthinger
MattyGr
I provided the evidence as you requested but unsurprisingly you don't accept it, just accept the fact that you were wrong and stop sulking. Obviously the 13-21 year age referenced on 10-15 websites are all wrong and you're right!
I think the old adage of never argue with an idiot as they will bring you down to their level applies here.
You've clearly been proven wrong so have now backpeddalled and moved the goalposts, over and out!
Absolute nonsense. A couple of websites saying something that the distiller doesn't...but it's the distiller that's wrong eh?
The distiller's claims are the goalposts.
You couldn't make it up. Or there again, maybe you could.
(Have you thought about contacting W and M to tell them what whiskies they've put in this bottle, since - according to you - they don't seem to know?)
This is how it works with NAS whiskies, the distillers tend not to add this detail to the description even though they often use old/rare whiskies. It's also because they use a selection of young whiskies 3-6 years old as well as whiskies 12 years + and the overall outcome is a blend of various ages malts. To presume these are all 3 years is extremely narrow minded, also just because the distiller doesn't add the exact age of each malt it doesn't make the distiller 'wrong'.
This is one of the better NAS whiskies out there, but as with anything the ages of whiskies used is irrelevant, it's all down to the overall taste, an aged whisky isn't necessarily a superior whisky.


At no point did I say the distiller was wrong - you seem to have lost context. What I said is that it is foolish to assume there is anything in the bottle other than that which the distiller expressly states.

In this case the distiller makes no mention of age at all - "aged" is a catch all that that means nothing other than more than 3 years. There is no suggestion of 13 or 21 year old whiskies at all - you are hoping it's the case.

If you like the stuff drink it, just be aware of what you are buying and in this case it's brand, not age.




Edited By: worthinger on Nov 28, 2016 18:24
#24
Whisky12345
My Jura Superstition has next to no text on , which is inkeeping with other NAS malts, although it does reference the inclusion of aged malts which fits with a 13 year and a 21 year old inclusion. These will be balanced with younger malts around 5-6 years old.

Correct, they (jura) reference aged malts which will no doubt be the 13 & 21 referenced on various sites, even if these only make up 20% of the overall whisky

Most decent NAS malts use whiskies of various ages but the distillers don't add these all to the packaging


Edited By: MattyGr on Nov 29, 2016 17:39: _
#25
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
#26
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.


It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
#27
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.

It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
#28
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?

I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....

Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.
#29
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....
Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.

I think I read his posts just fine

"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"

"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "

You on the other hand...
#30
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....
Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.
I think I read his posts just fine
"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"
"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "
You on the other hand...

The fact that you've just quoted a different post to the actual post in question just emphasises the fact that you're extremely confused! Anyway aged malts' is good enough for me whatever age they are, they're clearly more than 3 years.

Maybe you could offer something of substance to the debate rather than just nitpicking? What whiskies are better for the price?

Edited By: Whisky12345 on Nov 29, 2016 19:19
#31
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....
Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.
I think I read his posts just fine
"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"
"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "
You on the other hand...
The fact that you've just quoted a different post to the actual post in question just emphasises the fact that you're extremely confused! Anyway aged malts' is good enough for me whatever age they are, they're clearly more than 3 years.
Maybe you could offer something of substance to the debate rather than just nitpicking? What whiskies are better for the price?

They are obviously more the 3 years...you can't call it Scotch Whisky until it ages in barrels for 3 years. It can then be described as "aged" - a nothing word.

There's not confusion from me at all - this is a thread. It is linear and has context.

If it's good enough for you that's fine..that's what the distiller wants. But if you are telling yourself that there is anything in that bottle that the distiller does not expressly state you are in error.

And "better" is a matter of opinion. The brand has a placebo effect for many people.
#32
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....
Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.
I think I read his posts just fine
"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"
"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "
You on the other hand...
The fact that you've just quoted a different post to the actual post in question just emphasises the fact that you're extremely confused! Anyway aged malts' is good enough for me whatever age they are, they're clearly more than 3 years.
Maybe you could offer something of substance to the debate rather than just nitpicking? What whiskies are better for the price?
They are obviously more the 3 years...you can't call it Scotch Whisky until it ages in barrels for 3 years. It can then be described as "aged" - a nothing word.
There's not confusion from me at all - this is a thread. It is linear and has context.
If it's good enough for you that's fine..that's what the distiller wants. But if you are telling yourself that there is anything in that bottle that the distiller does not expressly state you are in error.
And "better" is a matter of opinion. The brand has a placebo effect for many people.


So not a single suggestion then, just as I thought.
#33
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
Whisky12345
worthinger
No, they don't. They (jura) make no such reference at all.
It says it on the Jura Superstition box, so yes they do.
It says on the box that the whisky in the bottle includes 13 and 21 year old malts?
I think you need to read the post again from mattygr that you were replying to as you seem to be confused, he says they referenced aged malts....
Anyway I think this thread has well and truly worn it's course.
I think I read his posts just fine
"Jura superstition is a blend of 13 year old and 21 year old malts so I'm not sure why you're quoting 3 year old malt?"
"Superstition is a mix of whiskies, one of them being 13 years old and one of them being 21 years old. "
You on the other hand...
The fact that you've just quoted a different post to the actual post in question just emphasises the fact that you're extremely confused! Anyway aged malts' is good enough for me whatever age they are, they're clearly more than 3 years.
Maybe you could offer something of substance to the debate rather than just nitpicking? What whiskies are better for the price?
They are obviously more the 3 years...you can't call it Scotch Whisky until it ages in barrels for 3 years. It can then be described as "aged" - a nothing word.
There's not confusion from me at all - this is a thread. It is linear and has context.
If it's good enough for you that's fine..that's what the distiller wants. But if you are telling yourself that there is anything in that bottle that the distiller does not expressly state you are in error.
And "better" is a matter of opinion. The brand has a placebo effect for many people.
So not a single suggestion then, just as I thought.

You are "Whisky12345", surely you can find a decent truly aged whisky for £25?

Here's one from the Jura stable. Genuinely aged for a minimum of 10 years.

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=291150837

Whether it's "better" of not is decision for the drinker.
#34
#35
Remus81
pigeonmount
This is a harsh tasting whiskey. The clues are in the description 'firm, positive, forcibly, strong'. Cold
Not being man enough to enjoy the taste does not mean this is a cold deal.
Have some heat, although it's a shame I'm merely cancelling out this little boy's vote.
Lol. Clearly you are a connoisseur...of methylated spirit

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!