Anyone into single malts?
I'm just starting to explore single malt Scotches and really know nothing about them. My low carb diet makes beer and wine problematic but Scotch has no carbs so it seems like a good time to start learning about single malts.
1. What is your favorite single malt?
2. What are some good, less expensive single malts to start tasting?
3. Any tips on scotch tasting?
4. Is the bag piper really necessary at a Scotch tasting or can we just squeeze the cat?
5. Any undiscovered treasures - single malts that everyone overlooks?
I guess I should not limit this to single malts - speak up for good blended scotch too.
I'm no expert, but I am partial to Talisker - really peaty. Can't believe we've had a whisky shop as a customer for years without ever getting a free bottle! bastards.
I bought a bottle of Sheep Dip for the 3rd meet-up in London, thinking it would be a joke. When I pulled it out of the bag about 5 people said "Hey! I love Sheep Dip!" and it evaporated in short order.
http://www.drinkhacker.com/2008/12/27/review-sheep-dip-and-pigs-nose-scotch-whisky/
>Talisker
Heh, great minds... Just started this yesterday when I visited the liquor store and bought a bottle of Talisker. Have not tried it yet but will during the snowstorm.
>Sheep Dip
Great name! The price seems good on that one so I will definitely try it.
Here is the current collection I'm starting with:
Malts:
Talisker
1/2 bottle of Glenfiddich
Blended:
Dimple Pinch - my favorite blended so far.
1/2 bottle of Grants
I love a bit of single malt. My favourite at the moment is Laphroaig. Highland park is also on the go at the moment.
I was a member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society for years. The missus used to give it to me for a valentines gift each year. I effin hate the stuff, even the smell.
However, they have two great restaurants in Edinburgh and great meeting rooms in their buildings which I used them for. They also have flats to rent in Edinburgh and London by the night.
They do 'supposedly' brilliant single barrel malts from about 8 years up to 20-odd years and release new bottles each quarter. As ASDA would say -when they're gone, they're gone. Normally a barrel gets a couple of hundred bottles.
Website is www.smws.com - where you can order their stuff. I think know their memberships are way under £100. You can also buy beer and wine in their establishments.
Quote from: Brad on February 01, 2011, 12:45:21 PM
1. What is your favorite single malt?
2. What are some good, less expensive single malts to start tasting?
3. Any tips on scotch tasting?
4. Is the bag piper really necessary at a Scotch tasting or can we just squeeze the cat?
5. Any undiscovered treasures - single malts that everyone overlooks?
1. Not sure its possible to pick one, but if pushed Caol Isla 12 year, or something cask strength
2. Not sure how prices vary outside the UK, but here you can get a decent bottle for around £25. In this bracket I'd suggest Arbeg, Laphroig, Highland Park
3. No ice! It makes the whisky too cold and takes the flavour away. Add a drop of water if you like, a little at a time. It changes the taste each time.
4. Cat's fine.
5. Again, would say Caol Isla tends not to be seen as much as the other more popular Islay whiskies. Also worth checking out Springbank. If you can afford it and find some - Port Ellen is a must.
Quote from: eurotrash on February 01, 2011, 02:32:48 PM
I was a member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society for years. The missus used to give it to me for a valentines gift each year. I effin hate the stuff, even the smell.
However, they have two great restaurants in Edinburgh and great meeting rooms in their buildings which I used them for. They also have flats to rent in Edinburgh and London by the night.
They do 'supposedly' brilliant single barrel malts from about 8 years up to 20-odd years and release new bottles each quarter. As ASDA would say -when they're gone, they're gone. Normally a barrel gets a couple of hundred bottles.
Website is www.smws.com - where you can order their stuff. I think their memberships are way under £100. You can also buy beer and wine in their establishments.
I was a member there too for a few years, though only used the London bar. They specialise in cask strength and label every bottle with a code but no brand to encourage members to buy by taste rather than brand loyalty
QuoteIn this bracket I'd suggest Arbeg, Laphroig, Highland Park
ditto
Adbeg & Laphroaig for the smokey peat flavours
Highland Park is at the opposite end of the 'shock value' scale from them - softer and more balanced
If I had to choose one, I'd have to go for Ardbeg, but only cos my wife loves the Highland Park so much that I wouldn't get enough of it.
Lagavulin is the shit. Then Caol ila 2nd for me. Used to like Laphroig until I discovered them.
Quote from: nicebloke on February 01, 2011, 03:26:59 PM
Lagavulin is the sh##. Then Caol ila 2nd for me. Used to like Laphroig until I discovered them.
I'll add these to my list!
Quote from: Adam C on February 01, 2011, 03:05:14 PM
I was a member there too for a few years, though only used the London bar. They specialise in cask strength and label every bottle with a code but no brand to encourage members to buy by taste rather than brand loyalty
The number is made up of the distillery number and the cask number - seemingly on that new interwebby thing there is a list of the distillery numbers but never tried to find it. It is kind of like the mini whisky ip address xx.xx
ET - yep. I used to know a few of the distillery numbers, but normally had forgotten them again by the time I left the bar.
+1 for Lagavulin
Scotch has become my preferred drink....i love it.
But my palette is probably not as refined. I also have a hard time spending a few hundred bucks on a good bottle of scotch.
So I typically drink Macallan and Dalwhinnie. Laphroaig is great too. But I think Dalwhinnie is my fav so far.
Thanks for all the recommendations! Writing them down so I know what to look for in the store. The snow storm has started so I've started, er, tasting.
Ok, I know extremely little, so forgive my 'please pass the jelly' comment, but what makes scotch so 'special'? I dont even know how to ask the question. But why doesn't anyone ever talk about bourbon the same way? From what I gather, Scotch is made from malted barley, in Scotland, and bourbon is made out of corn and made in America, and most likely Kentucky. And single barrel I think means it was a small batch and not blended with others for brand consistency.
Lately I've been drinking 'Gentlemans Jack', which is 2x charcoal filtered TN Whiskey, which makes it very smooth, as opposed to regular jack, which is filtered only 1x. When I lived in Alaska we drank Crown. I know neither of these are special and are mass produced but IMO they are both worth drinking, if you are a workin man.
But scotch seems so much more complex... Is it really that way, or do scotch drinkers just have a few hundred more years developing a taste? I know I'll be strung up for this but isn't whiskey pretty much whiskey? Irish, Canadian, Scottish, American... Why scotch?
QuoteWhy scotch?
You really need to taste a few good 'single malts' at one sitting to understand the subtle (and sometimes not-to-subtle) differences.
Next time you are over in the UK we will take you to one of the pubs that has a massive selection of Malt Whiskies on offer and let you taste for yourself.
added:
this: http://www.scotchwhisky.net
.. will either explain some of the issues, or irritate the hell out of you :)
Ok, I get you, and will hopefully get a chance to take you up on that offer soon, but can you tell me why there is such a spectrum of preference among scotch drinkers, and why bourbon is just good or bad?
Are we really comparing Swiss chocolate to a Hershey's bar, or are bourbon drinkers just a quieter lot? Or is it simply there is a much wider variation of tastes among scotches, relative to American whiskies, which are all compared to one standard (Jack) since that brand is the dominant commercial brand on the market, for the blue collars? I'm just wondering if history and time have as much to do with the variance, or whether there is a fundamental difference in the variability of ingredients and process.
I'm having a hard time w these questions wording, so try to read between the lines. In America, prohibition had a profound affect on the history of our whiskey. And Americans aren't especially known for their discerning tastes and ultra high quality products... We are more about refining mass production to a decent and acceptable level, at a reasonable price. In other words, the final output here has to do w the drinkers as much as the drink.
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2Fhs268.snc6%2F179675_10150374842085252_587880251_17149013_7949561_n.jpg&hash=e3c30005333bbafd2fc0b1bb2f92c4771016a2fa)
Found this...
Quote"The main distinction in the taste of Scotch is its smoky peat flavor. It can easily be called an acquired taste, but those that acquire it...crave it. Irish, similarly, has a barley-malt whiskey taste without the smokiness. Scotch and Irish are, mostly, lighter whiskies than the American bourbons and blends. They are usually aged in old, previously used barrels and require a bit more time to reach maturation. Single malt scotches, typically, range from 10 to 30 years aging.
Bourbon, on the other hand, owes much of its taste to the rye and corn grains used. Bourbon is also considered a "fuller bodied" whiskey than Scotch or Irish and some say it does have a bit more of a "sweet" taste on the palate (and by that I do not mean sugary). In the production of bourbon, only new, charred oak barrels are used in the aging process, which enables bourbon to reach maturity quicker than Scotch. Regardless, when dealing with whiskies, age is a fair gauge on how smooth the whiskey will be. The longer in the barrel, the more "complete" that whiskey will be."
...but again, no 'why', in really concrete terms.
The 'previously used barrels' part, definitely will influence the taste, so that must be critical, especially if they are going to age them longer than bourbons. Which I guess brings up time (aging in the barrel) which can vary greatly, and apparently influences tastes. I guess the peat, and where it comes from and it's quality, must have a profound influence too, in addition to the main ingredients and techniques. So these things probably account for the greater variance of tastes among scotches, although it could be still the technique/stills, etc. that are the dominant contributor.
...ok, enough about bourbon... back to Scotch
Dogboy, I'm no expert but it strikes me that scotch is a bit like wine: each distillery has a unique taste and nose. Moreover each region produces a product with distinct characteristics from the others.
When you read the guides to tasting single malts, they are being tasted much like wines. Very complex flavors.
>Prohibition
I think you are on to something with that. I suspect we had a much wider variety of whiskey in the US before that. I know we had a much more varied wine industry (even Indiana was a significant wine producer) but Prohibition wiped it all out.
It strikes me that our attitudes towards blended Scotch are more like bourbon drinkers - you try a few and then settle on one you like. Not a lot of nosing and tasting like with the single malts. Back 25+ years ago I drank Inverhouse blended scotch for everyday. Heck it is actually blended in NY City, and dirt cheap by scotch standards - still even today it is plenty good for such a cheap scotch. Back then I didn't have the money for anything fancier.
Heh, I don't know if that answers your question.
Quote from: dogboy on February 02, 2011, 01:53:16 PM
Are we really comparing Swiss chocolate to a Hershey's bar, or are bourbon drinkers just a quieter lot? Or is it simply there is a much wider variation of tastes among scotches, relative to bourbons which are all compared to one standard (Jack) since that brand is the dominant commercial brand on the market, for the blue collars? I'm just wondering if history and time have as much to do with the variance, or whether there is a fundamental difference in the variability of ingredients and process.
Not sure if you are a beer drinker, but the difference (to me at least) is the same as it is between a lager and a cask ale. Both are very nice, but there is far more variety in cask ale than there is in lager.
None of that is saying that bourbon is a bad drink though, I think it is great.
'scotch' over here would normally refer to 'plain blended whisky' - a mix of grain and malt whiskies - produced for the mass market, cheaper, and the only whisky I would ever add anything other than a splash of water too.
I would equate the higher quality 'blended' whiskies to Jack Daniels - a known quantity produced at a relatively affordable price. Good stuff for regular drinking.
Single malts on the other hand have subtleties of flavour that change with age and can reach crazy prices:
http://picasaweb.google.com/colbak/Whisky#5569109703686795490
.... yup, that bottle of Ardbeg in the picture really is £600 a bottle
yeah, beer drinker by trade.... lager (requires refrigeration to make/store) and cask beer doesnt. Tastes totally different in different ways.
Aging and mellowing of whiskey has to do time in the barrel, not the bottle... so saving that bottle for a rainy day, if I get that right, doesn't mean its getting better w/ age... you are just saving it for a special occasion. And other bottles being drunk, make it more rare as time goes by, thereby increasing its $ value, not because it is 'better' than it was the year before. So hypothetically you can have a 12 yr old Scotch, that is 10 years old, but that doesn't make it a 22yr old bottle of Scotch.... or something like that:)
Quote from: dogboy on February 02, 2011, 07:04:06 PM
Aging and mellowing of whiskey has to do time in the barrel, not the bottle... so saving that bottle for a rainy day, if I get that right, doesn't mean its getting better w/ age... you are just saving it for a special occasion. And other bottles being drunk, make it more rare as time goes by, thereby increasing its $ value, not because it is 'better' than it was the year before. So hypothetically you can have a 12 yr old Scotch, that is 10 years old, but that doesn't make it a 22yr old bottle of Scotch.... or something like that:)
Yes, that is correct. Also, the age statement on the bottle relates to the whisky from the youngest cask used in the final blend (different aged casks are blended to produce a consistent flavour).
...it 2:28pm. I'm ready to start tasting:)
Quote from: dogboy on February 02, 2011, 07:29:19 PM
...it 2:28pm. I'm ready to start tasting:)
Yeah, that is the problem with this thread!! Lucky for me it is gone 7pm here, so I don't have the guilt.
related post on cigars:
http://th3core.com/talk/water-coolerextra/brothers-of-the-leaf/
Quote from: dogboy on February 02, 2011, 07:59:30 PM
related post on cigars:
http://th3core.com/talk/water-coolerextra/brothers-of-the-leaf/
c'mon dogboy! What are you trying to do to me!! ;)
I walked away from this thread, and when I came back so many had posted, that I have started again :)
'Bit if an amateur malt lover here, tend to enjoy the peaty west coast stuff, so ticks for Laphroaig , Lagavulin, Talisker, Bowmore, and then moving east.. Dalwhinnie.
But then I like the mountains that way too.
Ardbeg I find needs water, and as I have argued for 25 years with my Dad about adding water, (he adds it, so I cannot) I cannot drink it in public.
Once I won a tasting competition...... (I was the only competitor that day, but still????)
Cant wait to get together for a tasting...... perhaps everyone should bring a bottle each :)
Any Irish in the bar?
QuoteAging and mellowing of whiskey has to do time in the barrel, not the bottle
Whilst I would agree - there are plenty who do not - it is a highly debated subject amongst so-called whisky experts.
Quoteit is a highly debated subject amongst so-called whisky experts.
Ha! I seem to remember the discussion :)
nah rupert - that was about where it gets its colour from - still a heated debate though :)
was it? I think I must have been drinking some at the time!
I don't know what I was thinking before: JD is Tennessee Whiskey... not bourbon. Bourbon isn't charcoal filtered and (usually) not from anywhere but Kentucky. Talk about getting everything wrong:)
Anyway, in an effort to educate myself, here is our list, as I see it:
Talisker
Sheep Dip
Dimple Pinch
Laphroaig
Highland park
Caol Isla
Arbeg
Springbank
Port Ellen
Lagavulin
Macallan
Dalwhinnie
Bowmore
Looks good to me - thats the first 30 minutes sorted out - what about the rest of the evening ;)
Tried Talisker - very smoky and peaty. Tried some MacAllan 12 year - smooth. I was instantly in love. So much so, that Costco had it for $10 a bottle cheaper than normal so I ran out an bought another bottle just to squirrel away. This is fun.
I remembered that there were quite a few fans of Islay whisky on here and was just re-reading this thread again...
Was surprised that Bruichladdich didn't get a mention. Its another Islay, but very different from the other heavily peated ones. Started drinking it fairly recently after having passed it over in favour of the peaty Lagavulins and Ardbegs and just had to recommend it on here. A few places have got bottles of Bruichladdich going pretty cheap in the UK at the moment so now would be a good time to give it a go if you fancy it.
Laphroaig for Single Malts and Makers Mark for bourbon.
>>>>that was about where it gets its colour from - still a heated debate though
its only heated because you can't accept you was wrong :P
nah - not possible - but I am glad you brought it up again :)
As you will recall, your argument had, as its core, an absolute - that ALL whiskey gets its colour from the barrel, and nowhere else.
For my argument to triumph, I just needed to prove that this absolute statement was wrong.
Not difficult, as I knew that at least one whisky, (Taliskser), got some of its colour from being blended down to cask strength using a less distilled version of itself that still has some colour from the malt and the peaty water. I couldn't possibly lose, as I had seen the process with my own eyes at the Talisker distillery.
I did try to explain all this to you at the time, but I didn't push it too hard as I suspected that you might possibly have been drinking and I didn't want provoke you ;)
FWIW, I also now have the support of Wikipedia. comin' at yer from another angle (shame they weren't around at the time this bee first flew into your bonnet):
QuoteUnder the Scotch Whisky Regulations, a "Single Malt Scotch Whisky" must be made exclusively from malted barley (although the addition of E150A caramel colouring is allowed)
So, the truth of the matter would appear to be that whisky can get its colour from at least 3 areas - the original colour of the ingredients, the aging in the barrel, and the addition of caramel colouring.
Ffs not this again. Please :-)
aw come on, Rich - it's an antique argument now, it must be worth something, no ?
Lovejoy wouldn't give you fifty quid for it
>>it must be worth something, no
Go on then :-)
I love it when you twist words round into your favour, must be the mid stages of alzheimer seeing as your stuck in your bedroom for most of the day and don't have much communication with the real world ;)
so to jog your memory
under no circumstances have I ever said that all whiskey on this planet is the same and gets its colour from the cask, but you said whiskey and to quote "whiskey does not get its colour from the cask" and that's where the difference of opinion arose whist sat in the bar at the last drop village, surely you would agree that this meeting did take place
I will also bring Caine in on this as he was your crutch you turned to in Shrewsbury and is indeed a Scotchman and if they don't know then who would eh, if your selective amnesia memory will take you back that far he was actually sat there rocking after drinking 12 pints of premium strength lager and was as much use to your argument as a chocolate fire guard and also said that whiskey does not get its colour from the cask when it turns out it actually does
wikipedia has been around long before the Shrewsbury meeting, maybe someone has now shown you how to use the worlds largest search engine to get the correct results seeing as you was sat in the bar area that night trying frantically to find a result in your favour
so moving forward
your now saying that 1 of the 3 ways that whiskey get its colour is from the cask, well that will do for me and I accept that even your good self can't be right all the time ;)
;D
"E" ?
Mick - you surprise me.
The structure of the original discussion was very clear.
When I told you of my experience at the Talisker distillery, you said I was wrong, and gave your 'absolute' version.
My position was never of attacking a statement you had made, but in defending against an attack you made on my statement.
The debate reached somewhat of a crescendo when you stood up and screamed across the room :
Quote"you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong"
... much to the amusement of the gallery.
This 'broken record' debating style seemed to leave little room for misinterpretation.
Choosing to 'recall' odd snippets of conversation from two different meetings whilst ignoring the rest is disingenuous at best.
Particularly as your 'recollection' is of the words you tried to put in my mouth, and your attempts to redefine the argument.
As others will recall, I didn't allow you to do this then, and I certainly won't now.
If you had been prepared to accept my point, (one based on personal experience), at the time, the massive thread at the other forum could surely not have taken place. You were, in effect, calling me a liar - something I clearly couldn't allow to go unchallenged.
Quoteyour now saying that 1 of the 3 ways that whiskey get its colour is from the cask
Nope - I am not 'now' saying it - it was always consistent with my argument, as you are well aware.
I am still saying that I saw Talisker being distilled to a clear liquid and then diluted to cask strength using a less distilled version of itself that still has some colour from the malt and the peaty water.
Are you still shouting
Quote"you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong"
.. to that?
If not, then fine .... but please don't try to redefine the argument again - there were plenty of witnesses to the 'shouty' bit at the start of the debate - in fact, I think most of the population of Shrewsbury heard it.
... and for the record, I am not right all the time... but it does seem that I am often right when I argue with you ;)
I'm getting awful darn thirsty!