Spirits: Let the Scotch Arguments Begin

[Jenise]

Hmmm...I chose Bell's because of an affection I formed for it when I lived in England so many years ago--it was, for me, an attractive and soothing alternative to the Johnny Walker Red that was the favorite of my then-husband, and which I found very harsh. And I would probably choose Dewar's next--I can't recall ever having Famous Grouse or Ballantines, and I never 'got' Chivas. We don't own any blended scotch, but I'm not the least bit snobbish about that. On the contrary, I'm very grateful for its existence because it makes a decent on-the-rocks cocktail (horrors!) that I can order at no-host bars of the kind one encounters at weddings and the like when the wine on offer is too silly/horrible to contemplate.

At home, we stock only single malts because we do love them, especially as a nightcap if we haven't had anything else that evening. We don't do cocktails per se and no one among our current crowd does but for a few vodka martini drinkers. However, if that changes and a blended scotch is called for, I'll remember your recco on the Famous Grouse.

[Robin Garr]

No love for Cao Ila? Talisker

I was going to join the "What, no single-malt option?" clamor, but I see that's been done.

For the record, though, Mary is the single-malt picker in this household. We usually have one bottle around, and it lasts for months, and she picks it. Current pick, Talisker, although she also favors Laphroaig. Gotta be an island malt (Talisker, as I recall, is Skye, not Islay). On the other hand, adding to Bill's suggestion of Bowmore as an entry malt for those moving up from blends, how about Highland Park?

Would it be wrong to liken blends vs malts as parallel to "fighting varietals" vs. the next level up in wine?

[Robin Garr]

At home, we stock only single malts because we do love them, especially as a nightcap if we haven't had anything else that evening. We don't do cocktails per se and no one among our current crowd does ...

I could have written these exact words about us.

No love for Cao Ila? Talisker

I was going to join the "What, no single-malt option?" clamor, but I see that's been done.

For the record, though, Mary is the single-malt picker in this household. We usually have one bottle around, and it lasts for months, and she picks it. Current pick, Talisker, although she also favors Laphroaig. Gotta be an island malt (Talisker, as I recall, is Skye, not Islay). On the other hand, adding to Bill's suggestion of Bowmore as an entry malt for those moving up from blends, how about Highland Park?

Would it be wrong to liken blends vs malts as parallel to "fighting varietals" vs. the next level up in wine?

Robin, I think Talisker can be pretty damned good too.

And I'm surprised that no one has singled out Isle of Skye so far.

Highland Park 12 is my candidate for perfect move-up single malt. Highland Park 18 is my potential candidate for best all-around-balanced single malt. It's also what I would suggest as the single single malt to have if you could have only one for guests.

NOT for your own drinking, necessarily: I'm still talking about the Intrepid Home Bartender idea of having a particular category represented for guests. And I'm almost totally convinced that the HP 18 is that critter. It's robust, but still elegant, has a bit of the peat smoke but not so much to put some people off, and has the most enticing nose and delight finish, with everything in between pretty much damned near perfect.

And while we're on the subject of single malts, the one that has made an awful lot of headway lately is the Balvenie Double Wood. It's good enough, but I'm not all that crazy about it because it changes the focus of the scotch from single malt to almost totally focusing on the wood emphasis. So, while it's good, it's not MY idea of what single malt scotch is supposed to be. If I want all that barrel influence, I'll buy bourbon instead.

Would it be wrong to liken blends vs malts as parallel to "fighting varietals" vs. the next level up in wine?

Honestly, I'm not sure.

Sometimes I'd say, yeah, sure, that fits.

Other times I think it's not the best fitting analogy.

And that's because I'm cursed by knowing history.

When I started in this business, blended scotches were essentially all that was available. Chivas Regal 12 was considered by many---most, perhaps, in this country---to be the epitome of scotch. Blends didn't just dominate, they WERE the category.

Then single malts started coming on the scene. At first, hesitantly. Took them a while to catch on, partially because they elevated way above the perceived price barriers (which was the point, of course: to create a higher priced commodity market and drive the category to a further luxury level).

So when it comes to 'fighting varietal vs. higher priced wines', I'd say the analogy should be 'bottom feeder' blends against prestige blends...you know what I mean, the always present el cheapos sitting way down on the bottom shelf vs. the Chivas, etc.

I think the single malts still sit up on their luxury shelf---but it is perceived as an 'affordable luxury', one that common people like you and I and Mary can enjoy, but not necessarily as an everyday occasion.

And if you look at other categories you see the same thing happening: bottom feaders vs. decent bourbons vs. "so called" small batch bourbons.

Tequila: mixto crap vs. agave vs. "special" agave (usually but no always extra-aged agave).

Does that make sense?

...The part of utility malt is usually played by some lowland sort in my bothy (Dalwhinnie, Glenkinchie, etc.)...

Dalwhinnie is the quintessential Highland distillery.

Perhaps you meant bladnoch or auchentoshan (they argue they're a highland)?

Definitely OTHER, for me.

If it ain't single-malt, it ain't real Scotch.

I wouldn't disinfect my toilet with blended Scotch.

-Paul W.

Lovely thought there Paul. Is it any good for paint removal?

I'm not sure I completely understand the passion around the no way I would drink a blend argument. I mean single malt is not like a single vineyard single vintage designation from a winery.

A single malt comes from grains from ALL over the place....sometimes not even from Scotland. There is no notion of "terroir" in Scotch. And the single malts themselves are not vintage designated, geo-coded, they are blended to produce a house style too. Yes, that is not the same as the blended whiskies but it is still not a single batch, single barrel (most of the time) type thing. At the end of the day, you expect an 18 year old Highland to taste like an 18 Year old Highland but that is because they've blended from their own internal stock to get to this taste too?....or am I missing this.

I love single malts too and I generally don't buy blended whiskeys and I prefer the focus and flavors of single malts, but they should not be revered in my opinion like a greet vintage from a great vineyard and a great producer. That is a singlar wine that is of a place and time and maker. Single Malt Scotch is of a maker.

I hardly ever buy a bottle of blended Scotch these days.

But when we were in Spain I learned to ask for "Jota y Be" in bars, and that one will do in a pinch.

My vote was for Famous Grouse, which I learned about from my brothers-in-law. Also not too bad.

I don't think they had that one in Madrid...

Like you, I'm not as passionately declarative about "no blends/now way", but I think you might be approaching this slightly the wrong way in trying to equate a single malt with a single vineyard wine. Apples and oranges, dontcha know!

Better to stick with single malts versus scotch blends and leave it there. Blends are, by their very nature, attenuated whiskies... thinned out, watered down, lessened, however you want to put it. Nothing more than taking what were originally single malts, considered too rough, too dense, too robustly flavored for normal consumption and lightened up for more genteel folk.

Whereas single malts, which for a long time were rare anywhere but Scotland, and even then a rarefied taste, and not what one served in good company generally, or to anyone but the connoisseur (or scotch geeks, in other words ) while the polite people had their 'scotch and soda'. But customs, times and tastes change. Hell, they certainly changed numerous times over in the last century of two with American whiskey. And now the Single Malt---the so-called 'pure' expression, the 'original'---is the preferred drink.

And part of that is the original, stronger, more pronounced taste and texture, the 'full strength' aspect of Single Malt. And taken to its extreme within Single Malts you have the further declension or internal hierarchy of Lowland (snif), Campbelltown, Highland, Sppeyside, the Islands (now delineated to Orkney, Islay and the others), with each having a general style and the distilleries of each region having a more specific style.

So in a way the conflict was pre-ordained...and largely manufactured. I say there are people---one hell of a lot of people, actually; the great majority of scotch drinkers, even in Scotland---who are aficionados of blended scotch. There are also quite a few of the relative new breed who like a mouthful of single malt. And there are even some people who labor pretty damned hard to tell you they really love Ardbeg (although I have the continual nagging suspicion they're working too hard to convince me of something I may never believe because I've tasted the stuff )

So big deal. If you like blends, drink a blend. If you like SM, drink SM. If you like particular SMs, drink those. Eh.

Like you, I'm not as passionately declarative about "no blends/now way", but I think you might be approaching this slightly the wrong way in trying to equate a single malt with a single vineyard wine. Apples and oranges, dontcha know!

Better to stick with single malts versus scotch blends and leave it there. Blends are, by their very nature, attenuated whiskies... thinned out, watered down, lessened, however you want to put it. Nothing more than taking what were originally single malts, considered too rough, too dense, too robustly flavored for normal consumption and lightened up for more genteel folk.

Hoke,

You are exactly where I am. I was only using that analogy because some of the SMS guys I know make so much out of the perceived "mysticalnessnessness" of the product when it is rather formulaic and frankly they are buying too much into the marketing hype. but I agree with you.

Many thanks

All very interesting. My friend Jimmy is a big scotch fan, I admire his passion and knowledge but I have not experienced the hype.
Whoa, he might be lurking here!