Johnny Walker breaks tradition

[mickblueeyes]

Actually, Gillman, 95.5% is as high as consumable EtOH distillation can go. You can add organic acids to make it go higher, but then it is unconsumable. By law, all vodka made in the US has to be distilled to that proof. Would you assert that Tvarski 100 proof has admirable qualities? Or Skyy vodka? Or any other US distilled vodka.

95.5% is considered by everyone in the whisky industry to be neutral (just as a sidenote). With any type of post distillation filtration, you are looking at 8-10 ppm (parts per million) of congeners. That is not really enough to make discernable differences in taste from pure EtOH.

Technically, this is called an water-ethanol azeotrope (the remaining 4.5%). This is a mixture with a constant boiling point, so it becomes cohesive and cannot be separated. SO, all that remains is that 4.5% is water and EtOH--not congeners. Anything distilled to that proof is neutral--lack and devoid of flavor.

After three years of aging, the EtOH has been able to remove enough flavor from the oak to yeild the flavors you described, though that process is highly debatable. Does EtOH break down lignins which ligate the cellulose structure? Something does, as lignins deteriorate into vannillins and tannins. No one is quite sure of that yet--it is a hot research topic.

[Gillman]

This is good tech data, to be sure. Let me check some references and see if I can't add more to the discussion.

Gary

[Gillman]

Okay here is what I can add as a non-scientist. In Charles MacLean's "Scotch Whisky" (Mitchell Beazley, 1993-2001), the author says, speaking of patent stills, ".. Copper lining had been found essential to achieve the flavour profile of grain whisky, although it may be dispensed with when producing plain spirit for gin or vodka".

He also says patent spirit is taken off the still at a strength not higher than 94.8% abv. Even if this is the same or essentially the same level as used for vodka or neutral spirits, his comment above shows that spirit to be aged for grain whisky has a flavour profile that is different, intentionally, from that used as the base for gin or vodka. Copper tubing in the equipment is one element, but I believe there is more, as follows.

I have notes based on an article by T.P. Lyons, written about 10 years ago, on Scotch and Irish Whisky Production. This person is a distillery scientist. He wrote that the alcohol concentration of spirit taken from the rectifier tray is not less than 94.17% GL. He also said how the still is operated can affect the concentration of congeners which has a consequential result on product "quality" (i.e., purity which affects taste of course). It has to do with the trays in the columns and the concentrations of furfural, aldehydes, tetranols and other congeners in the vapour between each tray. The concentrations can be changed depending how the equipment is operated. Initially (hence my earlier post), I thought he meant that even though the alcohol level is drawn at least at the percentage he indicated (94.17% GL), by manipulating the stills and trays - the perforated trays in the column on which vaporisation occurs as the wash comes down and steam rises - one can change the congeners in the final product and therefore the taste. I don't know if he meant that to leave a higher concentration of congeners in the spirit one must distill at a lower proof than is usual for neutral spirit. Let's assume that is what he meant. Then clearly, the grain distillers of Scotland must be doing that to impart, as Maclean (and others) have said, a character to their grain distillate different from the neutral palate intended for white goods production. If MacLean is right that spirit for whisky is never drawn off at lower than 94.8%, maybe there is a margin between that number and the figure (slightly higher, but not by much, I assume) used for production of the purer neutral spirit. Either that or it is possible to distill alcohols of the same, very high proof but containing different congenerics or levels thereof. I would have thought the latter possible because one may want to remove certain congeners through methods other than vaporising the alcohol. Some unwanted congeners are volatile up to or at the boiling point of alcohol, for example, so increasing alcoholic concentration will not of itself ensure these are removed from the distillate.

Either way, it is clear to me new grain spirit used for whisky is made to taste different from new spirit used for gin or vodka. The spirit designed for whisky won't taste like the white dog that one day will become bourbon; nor however does it taste like the liquor destined to be sold the following week as triple-distilled vodka..

That is all I can add, as a non-scientist, to this discussion. I welcome all commets.

[Blackkeno]

I still don't think it is reasonable to imply that most people who like single malt Scotch should not like (waste time) with blended Scotch.

Almost all spirits writers include almost as many blends as single malts in their top tier relative to the total number of offerings. (Of course there are many more single malts than blends)

I have about 20 single malt Scotch friends. We average over 100 bottles of single malt each. Some guys have over 1000 bottles. Almost all of them RAVE about a particular blend occasionally (Campbeltown Loch 25 is a great recent example). I don't mean this to shock my fellow bourbon lovers but, almost all of them would pick a Scotch blend over a bourbon if they were not having a single malt. I did turn a lot of heads by bringing Stagg to a recent get together though!

Grain whiskies very greatly one from another. I currently have on hand the following single grains: Invergorden 10, Black Barrel, Cambus 31yo CS (Cadenhead), Caledonian 21yo (Cadenhead), '63 North of Scotland CS 36yo (Scott's), Greenore 8yo(Irish), Shannon CS 9yo (Limerick, Irish). They are VERY different from each other. To my palate at least as different a various non-wheater bourbons. The idea that these "neutral" spirits have a neutral impact on a blends is hard for me to imagine. By the way, many of these are excititng in their own right.

I love whisk(e)y. IMHO almost all of the various national styles have great expressions. In my top tier, I would have to include bourbons, straight ryes, Irish (pure pot still, blend and single malts), Single malt Scotches, and blended Scotches and even a couple Canadians. The only major category I have not found anything exceptional in is American blends. I'm not sure why, but I would certainly not include American blends in the same category as the blends of Scotland, Ireland, or Canada. I think comparing top blends to non blends in other countries like Chivas 18 to Springbank 15, Jameson Gold to Redbreast, or Crown Royal limited edition to Century Reserve 13, is in the same ballpark. Ancient Age Prefered is probably the best US blend I have, and wouldn't compare it to any decent straight American whisky.

[ratcheer]

I agree about American (i.e., U.S.) blends. They are not about being excellent drinking whiskey. Their main purpose is to be a cheap base for mixed whiskey drinks. I suppose they serve that purpose, but that is just not the purpose most of us here on sb.com are interested in.

Tim

[OneCubeOnly]

Mark-

I was just reexamining your JW Collection pictures--does the Blue Label have an age statement?

[Paradox]

Nope, no age statement on that bottle like the rest. In the description for it on the flap it says "...it includes some malt whiskies of over 50 years in age..." That's the only thing I saw about any age for the Blue.

[SteveZZZ]

I've been told by a few different people that the whiskes (malt and grain) in JW Blue range from 25-60 years old. No guarantee of the truth there, but seems to me that it'd be more 25 and less 60 for sure.

Steve

[Paradox]

I'm not a scocth guy at all, but that would sound about right jsut from what I know... The gold I think is 18 years so it'd make sense to be around 25 with some 'old stuff' thrown in there to make descriptions of it sound more appealing.

I did a quick search and here is a review I found on it. In it, the reviewer claims it is also comprised mostly of 25 year whiskey. Review:

<font color="blue"> In the world of Scotch, JW Blue is the clear winner for carrying the image of the most popular, well known, top-of-the-line Scotches. Most people think of it as the rarest, most expensive and probably least-likely-to-drink scotches around. I'm writing this review to dispell a few myths -- For while Blue Label might appear to be the Lamborghini Countach of Scotches, while most of us won't drive a Countach in our lifetimes, JW Blue is QUITE within our reach! Despite being the rarest of the Johnny Walker line of Scotch, it is amazing how readily available something "rare" becomes when it fetches between 165 and 180 dollars per bottle!

Blue Label is Johnny Walker's current attempt to recreate the finest scotch from the original Walker recipes. Back in the 19th century, Johnny Walker blended an ultra fine, flavorful exclusive scotch and ONLY offered it to friends, family and those closest to him. The scotch was peaty, malty, yet because of the blend, very complex and lasting in the finish. The Blue Label offerred today certainly accomplishes the complexity part -- Sure, there are infinte flavors which dance across you palate. However, ironically, while I myself love complexity in a cigar, often times, I prefer the directness and consistency of a single malt scotch, especially when an exclusive and even esoteric Single can be had for 1/4 to 1/3 the price of a bottle of Blue! SO the real question becomes "Is This STuff REALLY Worth It???" WIth this review I intend to answer that question AND offer some hints of how to get Blue at a more reasonable price so perhaps you can actually drink this scotch and answer the original question for yourself -- This review is only intended to be a guideline, and hopefully, upon reading it, YOU can answer the question!

The recipe for Blue Label originated from the 19th century from Johnnie and son, Alexander, Walkers' search for the finest and scarcest highlands Scotch Whiskeys avaialable. Johnie Walker's master blenders created Blue label in celebration of the Walkers' relentless and uncompromising quest to blend the most balanced and flavorful Scotch. Today, Blue labeled is package beautifully, in original form, bottled in handsome blue flint glass. The bottle wears a handsome hinged Blue-Label box, with delicate silk on the inside. Each bottle is indivudally numbered with a guarentee of authenticty from the Walker distillery, including a well written booklet on the painstaking efforts that went into developing this fine blend and recreating a classic. Since the inception of Blue Label, the Scotch has gathered numberous awards and accolades, the most prestigious of which being the International Wine and Spirit Competition's award; Gold Medal for the Best Blended Whisky. The blend consists of only 16 of the scarcest Scotch Highlands whiskeys and Speyside malts, which is essential to keeping avid scotch drinkers interest, because it maintains the dark undertones and richness usually only found in a single malt.

Flavor wise, Blue Label is an instant classic from the first warm taste -- The blend has a wonderfully sweet aroma, very toasty and aged on the nose, the scotch drinks with a wide open bouquet of flavors, starting with a peaty and warm spicy body which developes into a very oaky and chocolaty body boasting fruity and almost chewy undertones. You can just taste the slightly buttery oak aging on the finish along with a delicate hint of sherry and fruitiness. All throughout the taste, the scotch goes from oaky and dry texture wise, to warm and moist, though unlike a cigar, the scotch maintains the same flavor, unlike a cigar which developes into different bodies and flavors along the way...What a shame, if this Scotch developed during the drink, like a cigar does throughout a smoking session, god only knows what flavors would come out!

I write tons of cigar reviews: While I typically don't offer advice pertaining to accompanying drinks to cigars, in this case, I WILL advise on cigars-to-drinks, or at least Blue label. Before I mentioned the notion of directness and consistency compared between single-malt and blended Scotch. The same kind of notion applies to cigars (although cigars aren't malted! Though if you're lucky you'll find some rare flavor-bombs which have a malty body!~) While I myself prefer a complex cigar and more direct single-malt scotch (like combining the yin and the yang) I also like to do the opposite. When I drink Blue Label, since it is so complex, I prefer a very direct cigar - sometyhing flavorful and powerful BUT not overly complex! Without going into Cubans, in terms of top-notch domestic cigars which fit this profile, my choice is the Oliva "O" series Omni. The Oliva "O" cigars are potent - packed with flavor, BUT because they're rolled puro style with all Habanos tobacco, the flavor remains very consistent, perhaps even almost monotone. I find combining complexity on top of complexity can be too chaotic to your palate, just a bit too much -- This destroys your ability to search for flavors and to appreciate the superb hand-craftsmanship and work that went into both Scotch AND cigar.

Bottom line, Blue Label is a serious Scotch, with a serious price. Sadly, sometimes I'm convined that alot of that price has more to do with the packaging and preparation, as opposed to the actual whiskey spirit itself! Compare JW Gold Label, it is aged 18 years (as opposed to Blue Label's 25 years) and while it's more of a straight highlands blend of only a hanful of whiskeys, it shares a similar body to the Blue, except less toasty and alot less fruity, though still very complex. So is Blue Label really worth this price??? 180 a bottle is no joke - However I can offer the following advice to buyers: Check out the market when you are OUT OF THE COUNTRY! Especially in the Islands - typically I make a trip to Bermuda every year or two. I buy Blue Label in Bermuda for 105 to 115 per bottle, depending on time of year. This is VERY fair, and at this price, the Scotch clearly becomes worth every penny, even as a blend. You can also find Blue at alot of duty-free shops at 125-130 per bottle. This is also substantially cheaper than 180! And since not everyone gets to Bermuda, if you happen to be going to Europe, you can find these prices at Heathrow, Charles De Gaulle, Milan, Rome, Ferihegy (Budapest) and many other hot-spots in Europe. So before you plunge almost 2 bills on a bottle of Scotch, talk to friends or family traveling to Europe or to the Islands, or if you're planning a trip yourself, remember to leave enough time to stop at a liquor store and/or duty free, to pick up a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label. Bottom line, while I typically prefer a single-malt scotch (where I pay good money ONLY for Scotch, and NOT on packaging or marketing), Blue Label is a wonderful blended scotch AND becomes even more wonderful at 105 a bottle! </font>

[bourbonmed]

Mark,

I do seem to remember reading that the Blue contains a small percent of super old/rare whiskeys, (40-60 yrs). Perhaps our scotch pros like Blackkeno can confirm or dismiss this claim.

Omar

[Paradox]

Yeah, in the description on the package I have it does say "...it includes some malt whiskies of over 50 years in age..." Hmmm, I wonder just what percentage that really is especially for the price the blue fetches...

[OneCubeOnly]

It's interesting that this review calls Gold Label a blend of highland malts--because I finally broke down and got a bottle, and to my palate it's absolutely SCREAMING Islay. And I mean a serious Islay like Laphroig or Lagavulin.

I just can't bring myself to invest in the Blue. I don't want to resurrect the discussion of malt vs. blends, but I just can't imagine ANY blend being worth it.

[Nokia]

I just can't bring myself to invest in the Blue. I don't want to resurrect the discussion of malt vs. blends, but I just can't imagine ANY blend being worth it.

I have had the Gold and the Blue and many other blends and while some are quite excellent(the Cutty Sark 25 for example), when you get to that amount of money($185 for Blue), I think you hit it right on, it's not worth it. If you were to try the Blue along with some very good single malts, as I have done, it just can't stand up to them. On it's own it is a very good dram to contemplate, but for the price you could get many single malts that will really blow you away(and a whole lot of bourbons). When you get to the Campbeltown Loch 25 at $50-70, or the Gold, then you have a blend that is worth it's price.

[MurphyDawg]

that will really blow you away(and a whole lot of bourbons)

BLASPHEMY!!

when you get to that amount of money($185 for Blue),

Hmmm does it really though. I mean for $185 I can get 4 bottles of Kentucky Spirit, 3 Bottles of George T. Stagg or Eagle Rare 17, or almost 1/2 a case of Old Forester Birthday Bourbon. No matter how good the single malt, thats gonna be a tough sell. If you are comparing 1 bottle to 1 bottle though the only bourbons I know that even get up there are Distillers Masterpiece & Hirsch 20 year, and you probably could find a malt better than those. . .

Tom (Glad Bourbon is more budget friendly. . .)C

[mitchshrader]

Macallan 18 is better booze if you're NOT a peat lover, JW Gold is better booze if you just want classy and smooth, it's both. I just finished a bottle in less time than any other since my youth.. Smooth is the word. Evaporation factor was incredible, I don't recommend it for hoarding. It is EASY to drink.

But, the JW Blue? Ha. There's many better ways to spend your money. At that price, there's world class cognacs, single malts, and bourbons to choose from.

It's to impress those who are impressed by price, and no other excuse fits its manufacture.

Good Booze, it AIN'T, for the dollars it costs.

The JW Gold, is in fact, a much much better value.

If you want to taste what GOOD liquour tastes like, Van Winkle 20 yr old, or Daniel Bouju Brut De Fut Royal, or Old Hotalings, (ALL of which you can buy for about the same price as a bottle of JW Blue, considering store prices) ..

provide great examples of styles NOT scotch. For Scotch Single Malt, Laphroaig 10 yr Cask Strength (Islay) and Macallan 18 (Sherried), and Balvenie Single Barrel (bourbon casked) .. are all three available for not MUCH more'n one bottle of the JW Blue..

And a heck of a lot better deal. Don't be fooled by hype. You don't make good whisky by blending. You make bad whisky better, and you STRETCH good whisky.

Best.. is handmade, one batch at a time, by somebody who cares more about the result, than the money it'll make.

No other way works.

[CrispyCritter]

I'm of two minds regarding blending. On one side, it's hard to argue with a finely crafted "single," regardless of its origin. However, skillful blending can produce superb results (like the Compass Box Scotches, or many Irish whiskeys).

I recently gave my brother-in-law (a dyed-in-the-wool SMS drinker who usually adds ice) a sample of Compass Box's Asyla blend - and he liked it a lot. Not only that, he liked it even better neat.

Straight/single or blend? My answer is, "Yes."

[AVB]

Bull is just one of the words that come to mind. There are great blended whiskies and there are ones that are swill, the same as any class of drink.

You ned to find better places to shop because Blue can be found for not that much more then what Macallan 18 is bringing. I got my last one for $135 in my hands and the Mac was $114. Tell me where I can get the other 2 bottles for an extra $40 or so?

Of course, this is your opinion and you're entitled to it but don't state it as gospel.

AVB

Good Booze, it AIN'T, for the dollars it costs.

The JW Gold, is in fact, a much much better value.

For Scotch Single Malt, Laphroaig 10 yr Cask Strength (Islay) and Macallan 18 (Sherried), and Balvenie Single Barrel (bourbon casked) .. are all three available for not MUCH more'n one bottle of the JW Blue..

And a heck of a lot better deal. Don't be fooled by hype. You don't make good whisky by blending. You make bad whisky better, and you STRETCH good whisky.

Best.. is handmade, one batch at a time, by somebody who cares more about the result, than the money it'll make.

No other way works.

[brockagh]

I rate a geat blend alongside any great spirit.The problem with some of them isn't the corn based whisky, but the quality of the single malt put into them. A lot of the time, the best malt is saved for single malts, and elements of the blend are matured in very old worn-out barrels, especially in Scotland.