Scotch/bourbon, one better than the other?

[rob]

I've written a lot and talked about this subject on more occasions than I can remember, but not from the opposite direction I am about to ask you about. Having started as a Scotch drinker, blends as well as single malts (and Irish whiskey), at first I did not take much interest in bourbon. My loss. What irritates me tremendously is when Scotch drinkers shrug when asked about American whisky (that includes all variants). "Don't like it at all", some respond.

That is all OK with me, as long as the person in question knows what he is talking about. If s/he had tried an Eagle Rare, Wild Turkey Rye and Maker's Mark, I will tip my hat and say, "you've found your passion, go with it". But they are not the ones that irritate the f**k out of me, rather, it is the ones who trust prejudices handed on from their peers. They accept it as fact.

Bottom line: I think many Scotch drinkers dismiss American whiskey on mere principle without having enough experience. (Why do I care/get irritated? Dunno, call me an altruistic philanthropist who want to broaden their horizons )

To my question: those hard-boiled bourbon afficiniados here, are you regarding Scotch the same way? As inferior/not as interesting. If so, what do you base your opinions on?

/Robert the curious

[BourbonJoe]

Well Rob,

I, for one, do not like Scotch, never have. I just do not like a smoky, peaty taste in my whiskey. I would also imagine some Scotch drinkers feel the same way about corn whiskey. Different strokes for different folks.

Joe

[CrispyCritter]

For me, it depends on my mood. Sometimes, a pour of bourbon is what I want, while other times, I reach for the Scotch, whether it's a sherried Speysider, a peaty Islay, or a middle-of-the road Highland.

Sometimes I switch styles multiple times in one session.

I can't say that one is "better" than the other, though. However, at least in the US, bourbon tends to offer more for the money - I can get a bottle of Stagg for about half of what I paid for my now-no-longer-available Ardbeg 1977 (which is going to stay unopened for a long while). I had a bottle of '77 early this year, and it was superb (provided you like peat in the first place, as I do). Fortunately, I managed to find another one before it disappeared for good, but it was still on the very top end of what I'd be willing to pay for a bottle of anything.

[pbrian]

I too just don't like the smoky peaty characteristics of scotch. Which is why I do like Irish whiskey very much. Redbreast and Jameson 12 yo are some of the best whiskies in the world, imho. And Powers isn't so bad as an everyday pour and/or something to put over ice. That said, I do have an open bottle of The Macallan that gets some attention every now and again. It's simply a finely made whisky that I don't find too peaty. Even still, these whiskies only get poured about once for every ten times I pour myself some bourbon.

[kbuzbee]

Rob, I like almost all Scotchs but will usually choose a Bourbon. I just like the way Bourbon is put together. The big exceptions are the peaty Islays, Lagavulin and Laphroaig. I just love those two. When I want one of them, only they will do.

Cheers,

Ken

[halpap]

I like both Scotch and Bourbon and will drink one or the other depending on my mood. I think Bourbon gives you much more for your money, so my everyday pours tend to be Bourbon. My occasion pours are better bourbons such as Stagg, ER 17 or AH Hirsch or any one of a number of scotches.

[Chaz7]

Rob lately, all I've been drinking is bourbon, and I considered myself quite the scotch fan. I like all reagions, and each is very different. But bourbon is now my drink of choice. I have said before, I anticipate a bourbon trend (or explosion), and we will see a lot of scotch drinkers wooed over.

[kbuzbee]

I have said before, I anticipate a bourbon trend (or explosion), and we will see a lot of scotch drinkers wooed over.

Which should knock the price through the roof.... Wonderful, thanks for the great news

Ken

[DrinkyBanjo]

I agree with you. I like Irish, Scotch, American, and of course Bourbon. Lately I've been drinking more Bourbon than the others but sometimes I'm looking for things that Bourbon doesn't offer.

Since my new found appreciation for the strong flavors of American whiskey I most likely won't be drinking as much of the others but I'll never put either of them down for long.

[Chuck_Osborn]

A single malt, a single barrel, a good Irish whiskey (Connemara). Wonderful unabashed choices I feel fortunate to have at my disposal. These are all extraordinary opportunities for whisk(e)y lovers. Stick a quality cigar in my pie hole at the same time and I'm all that!

[TMH]

There seems to be a wide spread notion that Scotch=Peat&Smoke. This may be because Scotch of that type is often mentioned the most. I used to also believe that was the case, until I had the good fortune of tasting several Scotch bottles (thanks to Doug ), which I think any open minded Bourbon drinker would enjoy. That being said, these bottles of which I speak are not widely available and considerably more expense than your average mid-shelf Bourbon. This may explain why so many Bourbon drinkers don't have the good fortune of enjoying a Scotch, which matches their flavor preference.

If I may repeat what Doug explained to me at our last Study Group meeting, the spectrum of Scotch is far wider than Bourbon. If you took all the flavor varieties of Scotch and lined them up (I don't mean brands) they would be far wider than all the flavor varieties of Bourbon. This leads me to believe we won't see a large number of Scotch drinkers enter the Bourbon market.

I do not mean to diminish all the great Bourbon we are blessed with. I'm only trying to point out to those who don't like Scotch that there very well may be a bottle out there you would enjoy.

Both spirits have their place and both spirits should be respected and enjoyed.

[Chaz7]

There seems to be a wide spread notion that Scotch=Peat&Smoke...

Both spirits have their place and both spirits should be respected and enjoyed.

Very well said. As I said, scotch was my drink of choice, but bourbon is now my main drink. If I go to a bar, and my selection is Old Crow or Macallan, you could probably figure out which I'd go for. And as for the prices going up because we are in for, my opinion, a bourbon trend (look at how the press is handling it)well, yeah that's probably a given. But my most expensive bourbon in my collection is PVW 20 y.o, @$65.00. That's where most of the decent scotches start!

[ratcheer]

As I said in a recent post, I enjoy scotch, especially good scotch. I prefer bourbon, so I only have scotch a very few times a year. But I definitely don't turn my nose up at scotch.

Tim

[voigtman]

For me, it depends on my mood. Sometimes, a pour of bourbon is what I want, while other times, I reach for the Scotch, whether it's a sherried Speysider, a peaty Islay, or a middle-of-the road Highland.

Sometimes I switch styles multiple times in one session.

I can't say that one is "better" than the other, though. However, at least in the US, bourbon tends to offer more for the money - I can get a bottle of Stagg for about half of what I paid for my now-no-longer-available Ardbeg 1977 (which is going to stay unopened for a long while). I had a bottle of '77 early this year, and it was superb (provided you like peat in the first place, as I do). Fortunately, I managed to find another one before it disappeared for good, but it was still on the very top end of what I'd be willing to pay for a bottle of anything.

I very much second all the points Crispy Critter makes. Most commonly nowadays, I start with a fine straight bourbon then have a single malt scotch and then maybe a straight rye or switch again to bourbon or another scotch style. I strongly agree about the value of bourbon relative to scotch of the same quality. For single malts, it is now routine to spend $4 - $5/year of aging for malts of modest ages while that is near the top end for the top bourbons, e.g., Pappy 20 here is $89.99, which is $4.5/year of aging. And I agree the Ardbeg 1977 is great: good I got one stashed! Ed V.

[voigtman]

There seems to be a wide spread notion that Scotch=Peat&Smoke. This may be because Scotch of that type is often mentioned the most. ...(Big edit) ...I do not mean to diminish all the great Bourbon we are blessed with. I'm only trying to point out to those who don't like Scotch that there very well may be a bottle out there you would enjoy.

Both spirits have their place and both spirits should be respected and enjoyed.

Agree completely. And there also seems to be a notion that scotch is sherried if it is not peated. Nothing wrong with heavily sherried malts like Macallans prior to their Fine Oak series, but most single malts are peated at very low levels or not at all and very few malts are heavily sherried, e.g., Macallan, Aberlour, Glenfarclas and Glendronach are the main ones in this regard. Other distilleries release heavily sherried versions if they want to, but sherry is not their house style like it is the four I listed. There are many single malts that have negligible (or even zero) peatiness, no smoke whatsoever (smokiness is very rare: Lagavilun 16 is the only common example), and no sherry influence. Examples are Glenmorangie 15, Balvenie 15, Scapa 12, Royal Lochnagar 12, Glen Keith, Bruichladdich 10 and lots more. Ed V.

[TNbourbon]

I usually have several bourbons open (right now, it's 19 -- geesh, just a month or so ago I'd whittled it down to a half-dozen! ) -- and, even so, there are nights when I just can't decide what I want.

Some of those nights, I decide instead to bide my time with one of the 5 or 6 Scotches I have open, most of the lightly-peated or Speyside variety.

Bourbon's my easy favorite, with straight rye hindered only by the relative lack of choices.

But, that said, I do drink some Scotch, and enjoy it.

[pbrian]

If you took all the flavor varieties of Scotch and lined them up (I don't mean brands) they would be far wider than all the flavor varieties of Bourbon.

But would it be much wider than the spectrum from a straight Rye Whiskey to a straight Wheat Whiskey (realizing that wheat whiskey is a new phenomenum)?

[AVB]

You might as well ask which is better – blondes, brunettes or redheads. It is all a matter of personal preference. Being a Scotch and Bourbon drinker for over 30 years I can say that in my experience there are good and bad on both sides. The one thing that Scotch has is a greater variety. I have 120 bottles of 80 different distilleries while my bourbon collection of 40 bottles is made by perhaps 10 different distilleries if that.

[rob]

That was not really my point with the question. Rather, there is a snobbery among some of the Scotch drinkers which holds that American whiskey is simply inferior. Period.

At the end of the day it's like you say, of course: to each his own. But the case here is why not be more open-minded to other types of whisky and have a go at different types before dismissing the entire category.

/Robert

[Chaz7]

Rob, Interestingly, most of the replies (myself included)are from bourbon drinkers who enjoy Scotch. But to your point, how many Scotch drinkers would say they enjoy bourbon? I enjoy my bourbon neat, my scotch with a drop of water, I prefer red wine to white and my gin martinis (as a purist, I should not have to specify "gin") with blue cheese stuffed olives. But I enjoy them all. I should be able to say to my wine snobs, or the single malt afficianados "I love bourbon" with out a befuddled look of bedeviled bewilderment.But part of the appeal to some luxuries for a few people is the "look at me and how refined I am" attitude. Me, I just enjoy what the good Lord has blessed us with.

[TMH]

If you took all the flavor varieties of Scotch and lined them up (I don't mean brands) they would be far wider than all the flavor varieties of Bourbon.

But would it be much wider than the spectrum from a straight Rye Whiskey to a straight Wheat Whiskey (realizing that wheat whiskey is a new phenomenum)?

Based on my limited sampling of Bourbon and Scotch coupled with knowledge that has been passed on to me from individuals whose Bourbon and Scotch collection is vast, yes I would say the Bourbon spectrum is much tighter.

That is not to say Bourbon is less interesting or bourbons all taste the same, it just seems to me that Bourbon (Rye through Wheat)has a closer range of flavors than Scotch. I think despite its tighter range of flavors, Bourbon has some amazing and unique flavor profiles. There is no reason to feel Bourbon is inferior to Scotch.

Here's a few questions for those with greater knowledge on Scotch and Bourbon:

Is there something about corn that leaves a greater flavor characteristic in Bourbon than malted barley does in Scotch?

Or is it the greater number of distilleries and various regions of Scotch, which accounts for the great range of flavors found in Scotch?

If Bourbon's popularity continues to grow and more and more distilleries open, in years to come would you expect the flavor profile of Bourbon to widen?

[kbuzbee]

If Bourbon's popularity continues to grow and more and more distilleries open, in years to come would you expect the flavor profile of Bourbon to widen?

Sadly, it seems the price of entry into distilling in this country is just too steep. The amount of capital you need to weather the first 6-10 years while your product ages (including taxes!) is huge. There are ways around this but you pretty much just can't get a distilling license and start cooking.... It would be great if you could.

Ken

[chasking]

Here's a few questions for those with greater knowledge on Scotch and Bourbon:

Is there something about corn that leaves a greater flavor characteristic in Bourbon than malted barley does in Scotch?

Or is it the greater number of distilleries and various regions of Scotch, which accounts for the great range of flavors found in Scotch?

If Bourbon's popularity continues to grow and more and more distilleries open, in years to come would you expect the flavor profile of Bourbon to widen?

I'm not sure how qualified I am to answer these questions, but here are a few thoughts and observations:

There are several variables in the SMSW equation that are not present when producing bourbon, including differences in barrels and peating of the malt. Certainly heavily peated whiskies (e.g., Lagavulin, Ardbeg) and heavily sherried whiskies (e.g., a'bunadh, Macallan) are among the more commonly cited extremes, contrasted with cleaner and lighter styles like Glenmorangie or Auchentoshan. If all SMSW was made with unpeated malt and aged in new barrels, the range of flavors would certainly be less broad.

I suspect, however, that it would still be broader than the bourbon range, because of the wide diversity in stills used in SMSW production. There are so many distilleries in Scotland, and each has its own stills which are each different to a greater or lesser extent from all the others. I suspect (although I don't know) that the use of pot stills contributes to the variability of flavor. The size and shape of the still seems to affect how many and which cogeners end up in the final distillate, which I think also contributes to the variety of SMSW.

I think these factors are more important than regional factors when it comes to variety in SMSW. Regional differences are mainly traditional---fine whiskey in the style of one region can be made in another region, or even in another country; see e.g. Connemara, which is Irish but similar to Islay SMSW, or any of a number of other Irish or Japanese malt whiskeys which in a blind tasting would be indistinguishable from SMSW.

Another very important factor explaining the diversity of SMSW is the Scotch whiskey market. Most Scotch is blended, so there is a market for more unusual malts, since they can be used to add a bit of flavor or character to a blend, even if the Scotch-drinking public at large might not embrace such a malt full-strength as a single. Most American whiskey is sold for consumption in its natural form, not for blending. So, it is not too surprising that practically all bourbon is aimed at a similar, middle-of-the-road flavor profile. (I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Seagrams makes (or made) some unusual whiskies that went into Seven Crown, but were not sold on their own. Intriguing, if true.)

Remember, a generation or two ago, malt distillers (with a very few exceptions) didn't even bother selling their product directly to the public because it was perceived that nobody would want pure malt whiskey because it was so strongly flavored.

As to whether the range of bourbon flavors expands, that will depend probably on the results of some of the experiments being conducted right now---Ken Weber has alluded to numerous barrels of experimental spirits aging in the BT warehouses, and of course Heaven Hill is bringing out their straight wheat whiskey this year. If departures from the mainstream are accepted in the marketplace, then we should see more of them. As tradition-bound as the whiskey industry is, this may be a golden opportunity.

[jbutler]

Rob's original question and the preponderant response seem to be about non-bourbon. We have a forum for that.

[AVB]

I would say that even if bourbon becomes vastly more popular the majority will still fall in a midrange flavor profile. This, I believe, is due to the restrictions on what bourbon is defined as. Now if you open up the subject and call it "American Whiskey" then I would say there would be a great increase in flavors and styles.