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.

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.