> For me, the premise is flawed. The things I like in Scotch
> are completely NOT the things I like in Bourbon.

I absolutely agree 100%. I think every whisk(e)y style requires
a "learning period" where you drink a few exapmles that highlight
different aspects of the style... and you don't taste any difference.
Then, later on, you start to develop your palate figure out what it's
really all about. How soon we forget the "learning period"! I suppose
that the memory lapse can be forgiven, because it's soon followed
by a period of absolute enchantment...

In my experience, some people really have a hard time learning to
appreciate things that aren't their favorite... and trying to fool
them doesn't work at all! You can't just say to them, "Here, try
Aberlour A'bunadh, it's similar to Stagg." They'll taste it and
immediately think "No it's not! It's missing something! It's missing
a lot! What do you guys see in this stuff?"

I've never been able to introduce a new style of whisk(e)y to anyone
who wasn't already 100% pre-modivated and already trying to learn.

My advice is to give people the extremes: Laphroaig, Rosebank, Macallan,
Glenmorangie... it's also good to give people things that they can
easily find over and over again, so that they can order it at bars and
restaraunts and find it at stores.

And on another note...

If you think the Scotch - Bourbon divide is big, try getting anyone
to drink unaged/underaged whiskies... West Virginia Distilling Co's
Mountain Moonshine is fabulous, but it's dismissed with a chuckle
as inferior junk. The divide is just too great.

SB.com is just starting to come around to Conecuh Ridge and Old
Potrero, but it's taken years...

Tim Dellinger