Starter Kit for New Scotch Drinkers

[MurphyDawg]

the only thing I have against this part of the forum is the $$$$$$ restraints. I already spend way more than I should on bourbon, where the heck am I gonna get money to sample scotch?!?!?!?

Tom (The Whisk{e}y Education Fund) C

[Jono]

You need to form a local "whiskey" society where the members get together and share a few communal bottles on the tasting night. You can convert some Scotchies to Bourbon and vice versa. A win win and you save $. Of course the most important duty is to be the "Keeper of the bottles" with lock and key. Liver eaters!! You knew there was a website for them...

[cornsqueezins]

Alas! One of the great dilemmas of our time! I'd suggest that liver eaters stick with bourbon. Like you said in another post Tom, bourbon is much more assertive than scotch. A good pour of Elijah Craig 12 yr. should hold it's own when paired with a hot plate of fried liver-n-onions!

And don't worry about sacrificing bourbon money to purchase scotch. The money you save buying chicken livers rather than filet mignon should do the trick. And what you can't eat works great as catfish bait! So grab that bottle of Elijah Craig and head down to the river.

[Speedy_John]

I'm glad you like the Famous Grouse. It is my favorite "everyday" blended scotch and is the biggest selling whisky in Scotland. And, since you seem to enjoy the FG, you might want to try some of the single malts that comprise it. FG is made by a company called Highland Distillers. This group owns several malt distilleries, including two of the most famous and most highly regarded--The Macallan (the king of sherried-casked malts from Speyside) and Highland Park (the great "all-arounder" from the Orkney Islands). Both of these malts are featured in FG, along with the group's other malts, Bunnahabhain (a less-peaty style Islay malt) and Tamdhu (a more run-of-the-mill Highland malt that is the "base" malt for the FB blend). All four of these malts are sold in the U.S. and are worth trying.

John Lovasz

[tdelling]

>You need to form a local "whiskey" society where the members get together

>and share a few communal bottles on the tasting night.

Things like this are a great idea... it spreads out the cost of things.

One strategy that I've found effective for a "society of three" is to have

everyone buy one new bottle, and bring two of those empty "ass pocket"

glass bottles. You divide up the whisk/e/y at the beginning, and at the end,

everyone gets to go home with a little less than 1/3 of a bottle of each of

the three whiskies that arrived. I've fouind that to really appreciate a whisk/e/y,

you have to drink it at different times and on different days, so this allows

everyone to bring some home and really get to know each whisk/e/y.

Tim

[Bob]

Dave, and other Scotch (and Bourbon) fans,

I just looked at this forum for the first time, and it is great to see that there are many of us who enjoy Bourbon and Scotch. I will definitely have to explore more of what has been written thus far. I've recently been wondering why so many that frequent this site express their love of Bourbon and their disdain for Scotch. I enjoy them both, at different times, and I appreciate the different flavors of both. I particularly love the peaty flavors of the Islay Single Malts, especially Arbeg, Laphroaig and Lagavulin. I enjoy a variety other regional styles as well, but I find the Lowland whiskies to be generally too bland for my tastes.

Bob

[bluesbassdad]

Bob,

I'm just happy that our host, Jim Butler, saw fit to establish a forum for so-called "Foreign Whiskey"; I say "so-called" because the phrase would certainly have a different meaning in Japan, Canada, Scotland, and maybe other places.

I'm actually surprised that a site with the name "StraightBourbon.com" includes as many knowledgeable fans of other whiskies as it does. (Perhaps even more surprising, I've even seen discussions as to the best ginger beer to mix with rye.)

I have yet to try any of the scotches that you mentioned. As you can tell from my other posts, I'm just getting started with scotch. Given my tendency to favor fuller-flavored bourbons (e.g., the Wild Turkey flock and the Van Winkles), I may find that my preferences in scotch are similar to yours. However, since I have yet to taste a scotch with a strong peat flavor, I'll just have to keep an open mind for now.

Right now I'm concentrating on getting to know Famous Grouse and Johnnie Walker black label. Lacking any semblance of a taster's vocabulary, I can only say that FG tastes more pleasant, in a casual, light-hearted way; while JW black is more interesting, to the point of forcing me to pay more attention to the flavor. I can only imagine how demanding of one's attention the heavily peated varieties must be.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Blackkeno]

I too have a very broad fondness for whisky. Based on your interest in the Islays, you might also like Longrow (a heavily peated malt by Springbank). If you have tried it, let us know your thoughts. The 1991 vintage is available both as sherrywood (my favorate) and bourbon casked (also great).

[Gillman]

Personally, I acquired a taste for fine bourbon earlier than for good scotch whisky. I think what threw me with scotch is the peat element. It wasn't the malt-derived component because I like good beer. I didn't understand, too, that peat was a smoky element until I learned more but also drank whisky straight or with water only. To me, ice complements bourbon and rye but not scotch. Cold peat is almost a contradiction in terms. Yes, Americans and the world over ultimately got a taste for iced scotch but that was also because those whiskies were blends normally with low peat character (eg. Bells, Ballantine's etc.).

Once I tried malt whisky straight, I could understand it much better. A good ham, a good barbecue is smoky, so too can a good scotch. I found I needed the low-peat single malts as a "buffer" before I could "get" the big Islay malts (eg. Lagavulin, Ardbeg). The Glenlivets, etc. taught me to appreciate the biscuit/fruity element, and from there, I could see how a smoky taste added another layer of complexity.

Here is another pet theory of mine: Americans turned to the charred barrel not as an accident, but in the hope of recreating the smokiness the Scotch-Irish recalled from home-distilled spirit in the Old Country. All whisky there, then, would have been made from malt dried in turf (peat) fires. A good bourbon or Tennessee can have a smoky background, so the difference with peated whisky (peat after all being another combustible, not so far from wood or coal really) is really not very large.

The two drinks really are country cousins.

[Bob]

As luck would have it, I do have a bottle of the Longrow. The bottle states that it is 10 years old, but I do not know if it was distilled in 1991. I purchased it because I love Springbank's different bottlings, and I had read that Longrow has a higher peat influence than Springbank. I opted for the Bourbon wood version. It's been awhile since I've tasted it, but now I will definitely have to do so to share my impressions. I can say that I enjoyed it, and that the peat does make it's presence known. That said, the peat is not nearly as present as with the Islays.

Bob

[Bob]

Dave,

As I know that you enjoy Wild Turkey, as do I (Kentucky Spirit is my fav!), you are definitely in for a treat when you are ready to begin exploring Single Malts. In my early days of enjoying Scotch, I thought Johnnie Walker Red, and especially Black, were the best that could be had. I did not know the difference between Blends and Single Malts, but now that I do, there's no going back! As with the various Bourbons that we love, the more we explore, the more we can enjoy the differences, and understand (sometimes) the different characteristics that we most enjoy. I'm sure that when you are ready to try some of the Single Malts, you will also love the varieties that are available. I'd advise you to try Lagavulin first if you want to get a sense of the Islays, as it has a great peaty, smoky aroma and taste. It is wonderful! Let us know when you do.

Also, I agree that Jim Butler deserves our thanks for this site. Conversing with others has helped increase my knowledge of Bourbons immensely. Now that I'm aware of this forum, I hope to learn even more!

Bob

[Bob]

Another Dalmore product which is very nice, and reasonably priced, is their Cigar Malt. For those of you that would like to try something that has the influence of being casked in Sherry Wood, this is a good one to try, and much less expensive than the wonderful Macallan's.

Bob

[bluesbassdad]

As I'm sitting here sipping alternately at a glass of Famous Grouse and one of Teacher's Highland Cream I finally got around to looking at the article "Knowing and Understanding Distilled Spirits", originally published in the March 1999 issue of Beverage & Food Dynamics, on the beveragenet.net site.

In the section on scotch I noticed the following statement, which is contrary to what someone posted in this forum:

"It is also important to note that each single malt is the product of a single distillery and comes from a single batch of whisky."

I question the "single batch of whisky" part. Didn't someone here say that, for example, Macallan 12 may contain several Macallan whiskies, the youngest of which is 12 years old?

Then, in the very next paragraph the article states the following:

"In the 19th century the technological advancement of the continuous still led to the establishment of large Lowland grain distilleries. This new still worked continuously and could accommodate grains other than malt, allowing the production of lighter-bodied whiskies from less expensive grains."

That statement implies that the pot still does not accomodate grains other than malt, which would surely have come as a surprise to early distillers of bourbon and rye in this Country. Am I missing the point, or should I now view the source site with some scepticism throughout?

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

I'd like to take a shot at answering this.

The article is not correct that a single malt whisky is from a single batch (although it may be). As long as the whisky comes from the same malt distillery (using the pot still method), it can be called single malt on the label. Thus, The Macallan 12 year old can and surely does contain The Macallan whisky from years of production older than 12, i.e., it likely contains some whiskey that is also 14 years old or whatever (but never less than 12).

The article cited may be wrongly transposing the idea that U.S. bonded whiskey is from one season's distilling output.

Pot stills can of course use any mash including those made from mixed grains. What the article means is that to get the traditional full malty flavour, the Scots charge their pots with a mash derived from barley malt only. The continuous still, a later technological development, operates in a way that, used optimally, the resultant liquor will have a fairly neutral taste. So, one might as well use corn, wheat and/or unmalted (raw) barley - as well some of the more expensive barley malt (some is always needed to assist the ferment) in mash destined for the columns because, why use the more costly commodity only when its signature taste contribution will be rubbed out anyway?

Now, bourbon is made today (mostly) by continuous stills. Why then does it have full flavour and not taste like neutral alcohol? Because the U.S. column stills are operated in a way to lessen their efficiency to ensure that the liquor pours off the stills at a lower proof than otherwise would occur (from 110-150 proof or so instead of 180+). Hence the full flavour of bourbon - in part, that is, because of course the charred cask makes a big contribution to the traditional bourbon palate.

[Blackkeno]

I almost hesitate to add here, but...

My guess is that by "single batch" the article was trying to say that all the whisky was produced in single batches (pot still runs) rather than an ongoing run such as column stills or the new pot stills at L&G. Either the author mis-understood this or wrote it very badly.

FWIF, Single Malt Scotch can be produced in a column still as long as it is made from 100% malted barley at a single distillery. This is rarely done, but last year's "North of Scotland '63 Single Grain Scotch" would also qualify as a single malt because it was 100% malt. It is also a Single Grain because it was produced in a column still. (It's pretty good too!)

[MurphyDawg]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

rather than an ongoing run such as column stills or the new pot stills at L&G.

[Gillman]

This is a good point and thanks for the clarification. I think the '63 North British single malt may have been an experiment.

Few makers would call the result "single malt" because if not made in a pot still likely it would lack the palate traditionally associated in Scotland with whisky made from barley malt.

But indeed these distinctions are partly historical and for convenience. Some pot still products especially in the few Lowland malt distilleries left are fairly bland because of three distillations. In effect, as in (most) Irish practice, the pot still is used in a chain of distillations that are continuous in that sense. Correlatively, no doubt the continuous still, both by adjustments to control (lower) the proof of the distillate and in that North British case by using an all-malt wash, can result in a flavoursome product perhaps that exceeds in palate some of the delicate Lowland single malts.

Even grain whisky must by law be distilled about 6 points under 100% alcohol so that the grain materials influence the taste of the final product. In this sense, grain whisky is not vodka. Here the analogy with straight U.S. whisky becomes apparent especially when one recalls that most bourbon is distilled in the ranges I referred to earlier.

That being said, the fact that single malts continue almost exclusively to be made in pot stills shows that this production process is considered one which, as a combination of an all-malt mash and classic pot still method (especially the double distillation type), produces whisky with the taste generally considered worthy to be called malt whisky.