No 'e'

[brockagh]

Not everybody, but for somebody so particular about spelling, please check my name.

I didn't misunderstand you. I understood you and you're wrong.

Everyone else I have encountered on these boards has been so friendly and welcoming.

I am often wrong about things, but I have the good grace to admit it when I am. I apologise for spelling your name incorrectly. I hope I did not cause offence.

If you think American whiskey is Irish whiskey, good luck to you. You must think Jack Daniels is also Woodford Reserve. I get no satisfaction from the fact that I am correct on this point, and have no real interest in convincing you that you're wrong, because it is quite a minor point.

And I am not particular about spelling - this is another absurd conclusion you have made based on information not contained in my post.

And in case you think I'm a scotch snob, I think any country in the world has the capacity to make great whisk(e)y and my favourite whiskeys, whiskys, whiskies, uisci beatha, craturs... are not from Scotland.

[ErichPryde]

Okay.... I think this is what Josh and Chuck were referring to-

so it's not just an American spelling. And not only is the spelling different, but it essentially describes different products.

You're saying that it is describing different products, but it isn't. Rittenhouse rye is an american rye whisky. Thomas Handy is an American rye whiskey. Two different distilleries, two different spellings, same classification. Jefferson's chooses to use Whisky on all (or most) of their labelling. Therefore, it is whisky, not whiskey- but it's still bourbon either way.

I see what both parties are trying to get at here. most of the time when I see "whisky" I immediately think "candian" or "scotch," but this isn't always the case. yes- typically Scotch is whisky and bourbon is whiskey but bourbon can be whisky and still be american. What cowdery was saying is, that regardless of the product, it is still whisk(e)y. He wasn't suggesting that Scotch could be made statside, he was suggesting that if it was spelled "Scotch whiskey" it would still be scotch, and ultimately, it would still be whisky.

Funnier still is that a good amount of Canadian whisky comes from stateside sources.... Does that mean it can't be canadian?

The fact is that we should respect whichever spelling the distillery (or bottler) chooses to use, as they are both correct Spellings of the word.

[ErichPryde]

Re-reading your post, I can see where the confusion started.

Colour and color do not depend on which colour you're describing. It depends on where you're using it.

I could change this to read "Whiskey and Whisky do not depend upon which product you're describing. It depends upon where you're using it."

That's essentially what you were trying to say, right? Your previous statement said "different spellings to describe different things," which conflicts with this one. I know you're talking about the difference between scotch and bourbon, and not that one is better or worse than the other, though, or that one or the other isn't whisk{eeee}y.

[Josh]

Re-reading your post, I can see where the confusion started.

I could change this to read "Whiskey and Whisky do not depend upon which product you're describing. It depends upon where you're using it."

That's essentially what you were trying to say, right? Your previous statement said "different spellings to describe different things," which conflicts with this one. I know you're talking about the difference between scotch and bourbon, and not that one is better or worse than the other, though, or that one or the other isn't whisk{eeee}y.

If this is what you are trying to say, Brockagh, then that is correct.

"xyz product" may be where the confusion is coming in. All whisky from Scotland is Scotch. It can be made from malted barley, wheat, maize, rye, millet, whatever. Same with Irish Whiskey.

American whiskey can be made with any grain too. Most are made primarily from corn, rye, and/or wheat, but there are plenty of American malt whiskeys too (albeit not a lot of good ones). There are regulations on what constitutes each category, but you can make any whiskey you want and call it American Whiskey.

Chuck, author of Bourbon, Straight: The Uncut and Unfiltered Story of American Whiskey available at Amazon.com & at finer bookstores nationwide, gets justifiably cranky about this because somebody pops up every now and then and starts lecturing us about the distinction between whiskey and whisky, when there isn't one, other than geography.

[ratcheer]

Again, much ado about nothing.

Tim

[smokinjoe]

Again, much ado about nothing.

Tim

Agreed. Much adieu about nothing. Liquor is licker. Just make it good, and I'll drink it.

[funknik]

Again, much ado about nothing.

Tim

Totally agreed, Tim! That being said, I'll fuel the fire with a little help from Old Forester:

http://www.oldforester.com/BLB_BourbonVWhiskey.aspx

[ErichPryde]

Agreed. Much adieu about nothing. Liquor is licker. Just make it good, and I'll drink it.

and this brings us to our next point: How do the french hold their liquor?

[cowdery]

Perhaps an analogy is in order.

Imagine if a British tire manufacturer insisted that when referring to tires manufactured in Great Britain, one had to spell the word "tyre." Not only would that be confusing, but it would lead people to wrongly conclude that "tire" and "tyre" describe two different kinds of products, even though they don't.

It would also be fair to conclude that the manufacturer was deliberately trying to muddy the water in an attempt to persuade tire buyers that "tyres" are superior to "tires."

That is what has happened with whiskey. People observe how carefully some people change the spelling depending on the whiskey's source and assume, incorrectly, that there must be some reason for the distinction, then they try to imagine what that distinction might be and convince themselves that they've found it. Then they go to the barricades to defend their erroneous conclusions.

The fact that so many U.S. producers use the "whisky" spelling, even the federal standards of identity do, should be a tip-off to the fact that they are merely alternative spellings of the same word, but instead we hear these rationales--invented after the fact I'm sure--about Brown-Forman and Maker's Mark honoring their Scottish heritage.

Yes, it's tedious, but teaching can get tedious.

As for my cranky response to brockagh, that particular misspelling of my name has been used in the past as a deliberate mockery or insult, a variation on chowderhead. I accept that brockagh was probably just sloppy, but that's why I initially took offense.

[ThomasH]

The Whiskey/whisky spelling debate is a moot point with me. I am well aware of who spells it which way. I pay more attention to the brand name and designation that comes before the word whiskey/whisky. It is not likely that I will confuse Makers Mark with Ardbeg even though they both have whisky in the name. Likewise, I'll never confuse Wild Turkey with Jamesons even though they both have whiskey printed on the label!

Thomas

[MarkEdwards]

The Whiskey/whisky spelling debate is a moot point with me. I am well aware of who spells it which way. I pay more attention to the brand name and designation that comes before the word whiskey/whisky. It is not likely that I will confuse Makers Mark with Ardbeg even though they both have whisky in the name. Likewise, I'll never confuse Wild Turkey with Jamesons even though they both have whiskey printed on the label!

Thomas

Hear, hear, and well said!

[unclebunk]

As my Dad used to say, "Just shut up and drink it!":grin:

[ebo]

I avoid all the useless bickering about whisk(e)y by referring to it as Bourbon, Scotch, and Irish. No confusion there.