My current favourite is the Laphroig 15...
I recently participated in an impromptu tasting of about 12 malts from Island to Highland to at least one Speyside I think. Now, I have been drinking Island malts for about five years...so this was the first time I had sipped any of the others for a long time. The strange thing is that as I went through the line-up, I noticed what I assume to be a strong grain husk flavour in all the malts but the island malts...presumably from unmalted barley. I don't know whether this is a result of "commercial" (and hence incomplete) malting or a standard practice.
It is not a taste that I am particularly fond of, however. It is a bit astringent and to my palate, sour. I first encountered it with some very highly recommended bourbon that was supposed to be "characteristic" of what bourbon was all about and redolent of the rye that supposedly makes high class bourbons, and bourbons made in the "colonial" style, so alluring.
I don't know why the island malts don't have it...perhaps the heavier peat that I favour covers it up. I did, however, notice it slightly in some Bruichladdich 10...and that's an Islay malt. The offending taste was there initially, although at a very low level, and then it faded to leave a taste of figs in the back of the mouth. So the "Laddie" was at least drinkable. But some of the others left me cold...and these weren't cheap malts either.
That said, the Laphroig 15 doesn't present any of that sour taste...neither in the first meeting nor in the aftertaste.
Anyway...I'm sure there's keener palates than mine on this board so if anyone has any thoughts about this, one way or the other, I'd welcome them.
Bookmarks