Single Malt Scotch Whisky

[Prospero]

spare us the science Dan... we just want to imbibe it, not study a flow chart...

[danthepoetman]

spare us the science Dan... we just want to imbibe it, not study a flow chart...

I don’t want to be a big drag, Prospero, and as you know, I much favour imbibition over science, but I think there’s still something that needs to be explained to people who don’t know clearly what this is all about, in order for them to make enlightened choices. First, there is basically two types of whisky, which will make for the different categories by which they are sold on the shelves of stores. The right way to make good whisky is with a pot still. You first take some barley, soak it to create germination, then you soak the malt resulting and make beer with it by adding yeast. Then you proceed with the distillation with the aforementioned pot still. This pot still is a big copper bubble with a relatively long neck in which you put this beer, and out of which the heated alcohol slips to fall off of when cooled. That’s what we call a “malt whisky”.
The other way to produce it is with an industrial still. It’s a conic shaped apparel which can continually produce a distillate. All you have to do is break some cereal, any cereal into flour, soak it and fill your still with the liquid and the damn thing continually produces a tasteless alcohol which for this reason is cheap and low quality. Yuk! We generally call this one “grain whisky”, because it’s made of any kind of cereal, often of several mixed up.

Now the products on the shelves and how to read a label.
First, the label saying “Blended Scotch Whisky”. Some bright guys had the idea, at some point, in order to create some whiskies so inexpensive it would sell easily, to take a little bit of pot still whisky with good taste, and mix it with some tasteless industrial still whisky. That’s what is called blended whisky on the market. A good whisky like the Johnny Walker, for instance, is made out of about 35 to 40% of good, pot still whisky, in this case I think it’s the Talisker, traditionally some Cardhu, if memory serves, and a few others, for its core, and industrial, tasteless grain whisky for the rest. The Chivas Regal, to take the example of another good blend, has a core of around 37% Strathislah, and the rest is junk. Blended whiskies count for approximately 90% of Scotch Whisky sales if not more.

Secondly, what we want to talk about on this thread, the “Single Malt Scotch Whisky”. The single malt is made out of the malt whisky distilled at only one distillery. It can contain several whiskies from several distillations, and even from several, different times, but it will always be whiskies from the same distillery. The age shown on the label (and that also goes for the blends), is the age of the youngest whisky put to in the mix to make it. So in the end, the Single Malt is the equivalent of a “chateau” production in wines; it’s a very particular product created on only one site, that has its own particularities and its own character, and always reflect the particularities of the very region it is made in. I think the sales of Single Malt count for only 5 to 7% of all sales.

The “Vatted Malt” or “Pure Malt”. You don’t see this one as often on labels. It’s not being sold as much as the two previous ones. The pure malt is made of only malt whiskies, but coming from different distilleries. You have someone who would like to enjoy a certain taste, so he mixes a certain number of very good whiskies from different distilleries and create a brand. The Poit Dhubh is an good example of an excellent pure malt. Johnny Walker has also created its own a few years ago: the Green Label.

Then you have the “Pure Grain”, which is made out of industrial whisky, but carefully aged in oak for some years. And some are nice, from what I’ve read.

When you buy a whisky, just read the label. Go for a Single Malt Scotch Whisky. That’s the quality stuff you are looking for.



__________________________________________________ _____________

[KnHd]

[danthepoetman]

Seems nice, KnHd. What is it? I only can see 2011, and as an embotteling date, I assume. This is very particular.

Bowmore is undoubtebly a good whisky. But for some reason, I always have this strange carton after-taste in the mouth no matter what Bowmore I drink, including the Cask Strenght. I don't know why. It might be some of the things I eat regularly. Anyways, Bowmore has produced some outstanding whiskies over the years. I don't know why either, they sometimes stop producing them. One of my favourite whiskies for a while was the Bowmore Darkest, not under production anymore. The Bowmore Dawn (finished in red wine and sold at 50% alcohol) was also a splendid malt, but the Darkest (matured in sherry cask), had a character that was absolutely unique.



A legendary Bowmore, seek after by some obsessed fans, is the Black Bowmore, Never had any, but it leaves you to dream.



And here, with another out of price dram, a 50 yrs old Macalan.

[KnHd]

Its a 19 year old Rich Oak.

[danthepoetman]

Its a 19 year old Rich Oak.

Tantalizing!

[danthepoetman]

Good old Homer...

[Ecstatic]

I've had the Darkest Bowmore, but never the Black, nor the Macallan 50 year old. One can dream!

Hmm, time to crack a bottle tonight. Shall it be Dallas Dhu? Lagavulin? I've got a few more on the shelf, have to take a look.

[danthepoetman]

I've had the Darkest Bowmore, but never the Black, nor the Macallan 50 year old. One can dream!

Hmm, time to crack a bottle tonight. Shall it be Dallas Dhu? Lagavulin? I've got a few more on the shelf, have to take a look.

Tonight, I'll go with the nice, fresh, well balanced and unexpensive Glenlivet 12. For me, it's pretty much a standard, the basic one. And I find that the quality-price ratio on the Glenlivet is outstanding.
Of course, this is always preferable, but a bit pricier...

[robertlouis]

Tonight, I'll go with the nice, fresh, well balanced and unexpensive Glenlivet 12. For me, it's pretty much a standard, the basic one. And I find that the quality-price ratio on the Glenlivet is outstanding.

Absolutely Dan. For a basic malt, The Glenlivet is outstanding - and well worthy of that "THE". There are depths of darkness and mystery within that shouldn't be present in a 12 year old whisky. I particularly love that bitter marmalade finish.