Johnny Walker breaks tradition

[Gillman]

As for the personal aspect (what we should like or should not like), one can't gainsay the old phrase, "de gustibus non est disputandum", i.e, taste is personal. I have been studying (as a pastime) spirits for 30 years. I have tasted widely amongst the blends and single malts. I enjoy the complexity of a good blend, the "symphony" of flavours rather than the "soloist" (to borrow a metaphor from Michael Jackson). The best blends out there today are very good and are something different (in kind from malts. Grain whisky is just another form of whisky on the continuum of whisky viewed historically. I doubt single malt in 1800 tasted like, say, Glenlivet, or any other malt for that matter, tastes today. Do we exclude long-aged malts from appreciation because malt was not aged very long in 1800, or 1600? So that is the personal angle for me. I blend (in the glass and small quantities) my own scotch whiskies. Most are vatteds but some are true blends because the blend may be built on a foundation of, say, Grant's 15 year old. I don't need the support of the great whisky writers like Michael Jackson to say blended whisky can be a fine product with its own merits; that such support exists hardly detracts from my opinion, however.

On the business side, I never said malt whisky would not exist but for the blends. I said that in my view, malt whisky would not have achieved the success the blends did as the world's leading spirit drink (until recently). Teacher's, Ballantine's, JW and hundreds of blends captured the attention and respect of people around the world. Scotch became a byword for a quality spirit, e.g. it enjoyed huge gains even in France well before the current malt whisky craze. Scotch whisky became associated with Britain and its culture - it achieved a status which reflected numerous cultural specificities of both Scotland and England. This could not have happened (even in an era of automatic "respect" for Britain, its civilisation and values) had the product not been fundamentally superior. I believe single malt whisky would never have achieved such success. The malts would not have appealed to a broad taste. They are too assertive, (neccessarily) multifarious and lack consistency, and (not least) they would have been too costly for most people. Even in Scotland the blends have enjoyed hegemony since the 1800's (Glasgow was and still is the great blending centre). Only "critically" have malts eclipsed blends even on their home turf; in financial/market terms blends are still way ahead. Most scotch whisky sold in the world today is blended, so people clearly like it and the makers are doing something right.

Anyway, I believe in the theory of blending. I don't cotton to most of the current blends, but the theory has a logic I find appealing.

Blending, in short, is in need of a revival.

Gary

[OneCubeOnly]

Call it snobbery or whatever, but I have yet to taste a blend that is any better than an entry-level single-malt.

As for citing popularity, absolutely--Americans originally embraced Scotch whisky only after it had been 'dumbed-down' into largely characterless blends. But I certainly wouldn't use that to argue the merits of blending! We Americans aren't exactly known for our exceptional tastes. (Heck, look at our beer!) That's like saying Jack Daniels must be exceptional quality because it sells here.

Are there some fascinating blends, and is JWB one of them? Yes. Do blends rank up there with singles? No.

[Gillman]

My point is they are different. Horses for courses, as the British would say.. Saveur magazine has a cover story on tinned tuna, pointing out that the tinned version (of which there are famous types in Europe using special olive oils, for example) has become a product different from the fresh article that inspired it. Blended scotch whisky is a variant of whisky that took the world by storm and really became a separate category. It would have been impossible (in my view) to sell pot still whisky on the scale - and the price - that scotch whisky was merchandised at from the late 1800's to this day. The best international brands, e.g. Famous Grouse, Johnnie Walker, Teacher's, have an excellent reputaion amongst whisky specialists such as Michael Jackson, Philip Hills, Charles Maclean, David Broome and numerous others. Malt whisky's revival is to be welcomed but it came about partly as a result of a re-evaluation of traditional Scottish culture that started in the 1960's, ie. these things are always part of a larger picture. Whisky in Scotland until the 1970's meant virtually only blended whisky except in a very few circles.

Also, based again on much reading, I believe the average quality of the big names in scotch was far higher in the past than at the present. Scotch was rich-tasting and had character. Today, only a few aged blends meet those criteria. Maybe had the product not gotten as dumbed down as it did people wouldn't have transferred (as many did) their allegiance over to gin and vodka.. That is something for the big concerns to ponder but it doesn't for me change the merits of properly blending (and vatting) whisky.

As for what people like, personally I don't agree that something stronger in flavour is necessarily better. To me it is all whisky - I like some blends and vattings, I like some malts, and I like my own vattings and blends. I like some for some occasions, others at different times. Recently I bought a merchant's bottling of an Ardbeg from the 1970's. I think it isn't very good (tastes to me like stale cigarets macerated in sharp spirit). I'll choose a good blend (e.g. Famous Grouse) over that any day. As someone pointed out on these boards, many of the specialty malts are creations of inventive marketing departments. Some of their ideas are great (e.g. I think cask-finishing did a lot for Glenmorangie) and some are not so great. Thus, I find drinking 30+ year old whiskies that are often too woody generally an uninspiring experience.

Nor do I apply different standards to bourbon and the North American whiskey family. I find American blended whisky an interesting category, for example, as is Canadian whisky. It is all one big family to me and there are interesting relations to meet in the various branches.. That doesn't mean they are equal in value to me, but I approach each product on its own merits.

Gary

[Speedy_John]

Amen, brother!

SJ

[Speedy_John]

You'd rather drink Old Fetter-fartin 10, Speyburn 10 or one of the McClelland sisters than JW Black, Black Bottle 10 or Campbeltown Loch 25? WOW!! God luv ya', laddie.

SpeedyJohn

[bourbonv]

Gary,

Some very interesting points. I have to agree with you that different people like different things - neither of them are wrong, just different. As for the dumbing down of blends - I like your point about this may have led to the growth of vodka and gin at the cost of whiskies (I may steal this example for some discussions I have been having with other people, if you don't mind). American blends used be much better products than they are today. In the 1940's and 50's Glenmore used to bottle Old Thompson blended whiskey. It was advertised as being "Wed in the Wood" since they would take their whiskies and blend them, and then put them back into the barrel for a year before bottling the whiskey. This shows the care they had for producing a quality product.

Mike Veach

[mickblueeyes]

LOL Speedy John, Those barely qualify for single malts to my taste buds

[Gillman]

Hey I don't mind, more "grist for the mill".

I think a tasting of 1930's-1950's American blended whiskeys would be most instructive. I believe as you say that current versions would be less interesting overall although some are still quite good, e.g. I like Barton's blended whiskeys.

[mickblueeyes]

I agree with the general consensus that modern blends are far worse than their previous counterparts, in general.

However, shortly after the invention of the Coffey still in 1826, Pattison Bros began marketing their own blended whiskies. It is rumored they were using as little as 2% malt whiskies in the blend. Clearly this was a problem and when they went defunct the 1909 orders were set in place.

I still remain stoic on the point that single malt flourished throughout Scotland and England without the help of blends. International success came through blends, though not necessary, IMO. Look at very regional products like Pisco, tequila, mezcal and Cachaca which have been recently catapulted into the limelight. Eventually, the same would have happened to Scotch and probably in a similar timeframe.

[MurphyDawg]

Would you frown if I lumped Early Times and McCormick whiskey in with quality bourbon and said "I prefer its lighter taste sometimes"?

Naw man you got us all wrong. You wanna drink early times (which isnt a bourbon stateside last time I checked) go ahead. Ten High? sure! Fighting Cock?? Even Old Dan Tucker if you want to. Thats the joy of this site, you can drink whatever you want and we wont shoot you down... BTW one of the only two scotch's I can even stomach is a blend ("Dimple" Pinch 15 year).

TomC

[MurphyDawg]

Why contaminate good malt with grain whisky!?

I love that comment I keep hearing!! LOL isnt "grain whiskey" not all that far removed from the basic concept of bourbon?? I cant see much harm in adding a bourbon like product to scotch, personally.

Tom (maybe I am a little biased) C

[OneCubeOnly]

Why contaminate good malt with grain whisky!?

I love that comment I keep hearing!! LOL isnt "grain whiskey" not all that far removed from the basic concept of bourbon?? I cant see much harm in adding a bourbon like product to scotch, personally.

So corn grist white dog thrown into uncharred barrels makes bourbon now!? Gosh, I'm glad I read this forum to become so enlightened! Is that why Georgia Moon is next to the bourbon at ABC?

[mickblueeyes]

Murph, I think you fail to understad some simple concepts here. First, it is like asking Bourbon drinkers to like blends. Perfectly good corn or rye based whiskies with "grain whiskies or grain neutral spirits" added.

Secondly, when refering to grain whiskies, you are talking about a product that comes of the still at 95.5% EtOH, not less than 80% as US law dictates. That 15.5% contains many flavor elements. So no, it isn't like using bourbon, it is like adding Tvarski 100 proof to barrels and then blending with perfectly good single malt.

Also, who said it was corn based? To my knowledge, corn isn't used in distillation much in Europe, as corn is viewed as "feed" for animals. They don't even eat much corn there. I am pretty sure the grain whiskies are wheat or barley based, unless someone can definitively tell me otherwise.

[MurphyDawg]

I would just like to mention I said bourbon-like (sorry I forgot the hyphen in previous post), not bourbon and yes georgia moon would be considered a bourbon-like in my opinion, so I would have to say that the comparison still rings true. There have been questions raised from the standpoint that corn whiskey is actually the blending whiskey standpoint, but lets say they are. What I was trying to get to is that even unaged corn whiskey bears some similarities to the aged bourbon we know and love. And coming to scotch from a bourbon whiskey enthusiasts standpoint I may be drawn to characteristics I find familiar initially. So I would think that I (like many other of the "blends guys" on the forum) might be drawn to blends first for this reason.

Just a hypothesis.

TomC

Tom (Pardon me if I came off sounding confrontational last post. . .) C

[MurphyDawg]

Murph, I think you fail to understad some simple concepts here.

Those are all great points kiddo. I am glad you enlightned me a litte. My turn now to enlighten you to someting. Dont EVER insult my intelligence again. From what I had read previously blending grain whiskey was largely corn based, if its not, oh well, my mistake. My small sample section of information would have very little to do with how well I understand it.

TomC

[mickblueeyes]

Murph, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. Lighten up.

There is a big difference between distillation to 80% and 95.5%, regardless of starting mash. One can be called bourbon if aged in wood, the other cannot. It is this difference I refered to when I said you didn't understand.

[bourbonv]

The aged blending agent I had in Scotland was the product that is used in United Distillers blends of the time. This included, Johnny Walker, Dewers, Black and White, Teachers, White Horse and many more than I have time to name. It was aged in used barrels, was made from maize (Brit term for American CORN) and had a very nice red color, was bottled at about 120 proof and tasted very borbon-like. You could even buy it in some specialty stores. It was not a neutral spirit or vodka. Maybe for the cheaper blends they use a neutral spirit, but not for their real money makers.

Mike Veach

[MurphyDawg]

Well heres the thing if you read my response to OneCube I knew exactly what you were talking about. I was referring to a bourbon like whiskey say like the white dog off the still at Buffalo Trace I got to try last year. So I understood exactly what you are referring to. I would venture to bet that if you gave me a single malt and a blend with say Rain Vodka a the "grain "whiskey" (BT's 100% organic corn vodka), I would take the blend. there are some attribute of the corn in the mash that are already noticable at the white dog stage that I am drawn to, I was just hypothesising that maybe that is why so many of the forum guys are "blends guys".

Do I think you were really insyulting my intelligence. No. Do I think you response was worded with very little tact. Yes. I dont fee like lightening up quite yet, thanx.

TomC

[OneCubeOnly]

The basic argument for blends is that the grain whisky will somehow accentuate or complement the characteristics of the malts. Using the Georgia Moon analogy, it'd be like doing a vatting of Julian's whiskies and then diluting them with a healthy dose of Georgia Moon or Everclear. Do you really think it'll enhance the experience!?

Again, I still say, why contaminate good malt with grain? The distilleries do it because it does a certain dumbing-down, and it's WAAAAY cheaper than vatting.

[SteveZZZ]

I agree that for the most part a single malt is superior to a blend. But I don't consider them the same drink... there are single malts to be enjoyed, and there are blends to be enjoyed, both because of their own merits. Sometimes I drink Lagavuilin, Bowmore, Macallan, Dalwhinnie, etc, but sometimes I want JW blue or gold, or some other blend. There's nothing inherently wrong with a blend. If you're a purist and don't like the idea of it, don't drink it. Whether you like it or not, there are a large number of scotch enthusiasts who do enjoy blends on occasion.

Steve

[MurphyDawg]

From the point of view of someone who love single malt scotch I would agree completly with what you say. I guess what I was trying to bring forth was the idea that since we are in the foriegn whiskey section of a bourbon forum, that the one thing we all have in common is a love for a corn based whiskey (bourbon). And that maybe many of these folks are drawn to blends because of the 1similarities imparted by using something like corn whiskey in it. It provides a common ground in which to start delving into the world of single malts. A good blend in this aspect can be likened to what I think of Makers Mark. It tastes like the whiskey that it represents, but not overwhelmingly so enough to put you off. Once you are used to said whiskey, then you can start the real adventure. And once you either decide you like or dislike the genre in question, it seems the majority of folks leave the whiskey that initiated them behind in favor of the riches they have in store.

TomC

TomC

[Gillman]

The industry uses either corn, called maize in some parts of Europe, or wheat. Generally market price dictates the choice. Yes, grain whisky is brought off the still at about 95% abv. However, as Mike says, its flavour contribution is far from neutral. Read any grain whisky taste notes and you read: vanilla (a hallmark of bourbon and American blended whiskey), melon, honeysuckle, and/or caramel. Although grain whisky is distilled to a high proof, some flavour is left in, the process is not taken as far as for neutral spirits or vodka. As an example, there generally are three distillations done for Canadian whisky, one of which is extractive, designed to remove flavours felt not suitable for the final product that would otherwise remain even in the high-test distillate. These flavours are (it is my understanding) often left in the Scottish continuous grain distillate. When you age grain spirit for years in ex-bourbon casks, it can acquire a bourbon-like taste. We read often that the taste of any whisky is 75-80% from the barrel. If a Scots grain whisky is aged, say, 8, 10 or 12 years in ex-bourbon casks (as is almost invariably the case), it will acquire much of its flavour from the cask. Why is 15 year old bourbon much darker than 4 year old? It had all those extra years to take more from the cask. The cask keeps giving; it gives American charred oak ("bourbon", in part) character to some grain whiskies no less (and not only that to some malts but there the barley base will turn the profile away from corn-based bourbon). Here is how this can be tested. Recently I bought a bottle of Black Velvet. It was aged 8 years, almost certainly in ex-bourbon barrels (this being a frequent practice in Canada). It is made much like a grain whisky in Scotland, because continuous spirits distilled at over 180 proof from corn, aged in the same kind of barrel, should have a similar (not identical) taste, and they do. So the flavour of aged blended Scotch does, in my view, partly connect to the taste of bourbon whiskey not to mention other types of American whskey. If you compare Black Velvet, and no doubt the aged blending agent Mike mentioned that was red in colour, to say, one of the less costly bourbons out there, one can see they are connected - not the same drink of course, but related. It works the other way too. I added some of that Black Velvet to a (personal) vatting I had of malt whiskies. The result is like a luxury blended scotch whisky. I would defy anyone who did not know to tell me this isn't "scotch" (and very good "scotch"). Sure, it isn't real scotch, and this was an experiment only, but it shows by the converse case the close relationship between American whiskey and blended scotch whisky.

Gary

[mickblueeyes]

You make an excellent point Murph.

[mickblueeyes]

Gilman, if you are stating that distillation to 95.5% abv isn't neutral, what is "neutral" in your opinion?

[Gillman]

It isn't only the alcohol content. It is the type and amount of congenerics that are removed, or not, and of course the length and type of cask aging. Recently I was reading taste notes on grain whiskies in issue 25 of Whisky Magazine. Here is what Jackson says of Black Barrel: "... smoky ... syrupy ... spicy (cinammon?) ... good full gold ... barrel may have been well-charred .. plenty of juicy wood extract". That is a bourbon-like description (to me). Some of the whiskies in that tasting disclose more the citric, honeysuckle side of grain whisky, so there the barrel effect was different.

Some of this has to do with aging the product but unquestionably the new product is far from denuded of all whisky taste (else aged grain whisky would taste like woody vodka, which it generally does not). I have a book by Philip Hills where he explains in more detail the taste characteristics of grain whisky. I will try to locate this and quote pertinent extracts.

Gary