Maltmark started a discussion
11 years ago
Discussions
1 30
11 years ago
Use the filters above to search this discussion.
@Maltmark. I suspect @Victor might weigh in on this. As our resident American whiskey expert I'm sure he will provide his usual wise thoughts on your question. I think perhaps American whiskey and Scotch single malt whisky should be considered as two quite different beverages and each enjoyed for its own unique characteristics. It may be unfair to compare them using the same criteria. It might also not be useful to consider them to be in competition with each other. Cheers.
11 years ago 4Who liked this?
Terroir is a polite way of stating that geographical location explains away the differences; perhaps we should leave it at that.
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
American whiskies and single malt whiskies are both whiskies, but there are so many differences with them that they require a different perspective. Chuck Cowdery alluded to it a bit in his most recent post:
Still, when you say single malt whisky, you're talking about spirit from malted barley from a single distillery. When you say American whiskey, do you mean bourbon whiskey, rye whiskey, Tennessee whiskey, or something else? They use a completely different ingredient base. Cognac and Pays d'Auge Calvados are both made with fruit, but have different characteristics and qualities because of the components and some of the crafting methods.
It seems as though you like smoky finishes - focusing on Ardbeg, Lagavulin, and Springbank - and are keen to mention higher end bourbons that you've tried. Have you had Balcones products, or the Balcones Single Malt? Those tend to be a bit smokier. Or is it the combination of smoky and sherry (as all three distilleries use ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks)? Is it more a flavor preference issue for you? I'm sure that there are people who would argue and ask whether single malt whiskies can ever be as rich as a good bourbon. There are more restrictions on bourbon production, for instance, from the use of new charred oak barrels, so you get more vanilla, maple, and caramel type flavors in bourbons than you do with most single malt whiskies.
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
Maltmark, love the interesting topic! I have to say that I agree with you that most American whiskies lack complexity and finish. In my mind, Scotch and American are different "types" of drink: I pour a nice bourbon when I just want something delicious to drink in the evening, and I pour a Scotch when I want something interesting to drink and think about. Different moods for different drinks.
11 years ago 3Who liked this?
@BlueNote I agree with you. I'm not trying to compare them (single malt vs. bourbon/rye) but just trying to ask if there is complexity to be found in a bourbon/rye. The other option is that my palate isn't as in tune to discovering the different flavors in bourbon/ryes as it is in Single malts. @numen I haven't tried Balcones yet. I've seen them and would like to know which expression would knock my socks off, if any. I'm not really trying to find a smoky bourbon, I just like the long finish I get from peaty whiskies and that was the reason for my question of long finish. There are other characteristics I like more with high end bourbons over single malt like the oily drying mouthfeel of high ABV's like stagg, handy, e. h. taylor.
@victor Do you have any bourbon/rye recommendations that would blow me away in the way of complexity and long finish?
11 years ago 0
@Maltmark If you can still find it, Wild Turkey Tradition 14 yr is one that really had it. For me, "complexity" means that I can still be finding new flavors and "figuring it out" even after drinking a whole bottle. WT Tradition is probably the only bottle of American I've had that I hadn't found everything by the end of the bottle (or, even after a dram or two generally).
11 years ago 0
US bourbon and rye whiskeys 'compete' with (non-US) malts? Why would they have to? What is whisky? It is distilled spirit made from grain, aged in wood. Everything else is peripheral,...an add-on.
These different types of whiskies are different animals, with very different sets of flavours. Personally I like them all, but I am not in the business of telling anyone else what she or he should like. I had to overcome my aversion to that weakly-flavoured grain, barley, and second-rate re-used wood, to get to liking (non-US) malt whiskies. I used to think that people and producers craved big peat and smoke, and big wine, in their (non-US) malts because barley is such an inferior grain to work with, and used wood has little flavour. They had to get some flavour somewhere...so peat bombs and sherry bombs draw the attention of those Scotch whisky drinkers who like some strength in the flavours of their whisky. BUT...an open mind allows one to get past the conditioned limitations of one's early experiences. So I tried a lot of malts, and found that I like a lot of malts.
@Maltmark, if you are not already finding a lot of complexity in George T. Stagg bourbon or Thomas H Handy Rye there is nothing whatsoever that I can possibly tell you that will help you find complexity in any US bourbon or straight rye whiskeys. Jim Murray reported that it took him four hours to compile his tasting notes for one of his reviews of George T. Stagg, because of the endless nuances of complexity. Are you missing something here? It could be that you are looking for particular sorts of flavours, and just don't register the types of flavours which ARE present in US whiskeys.
American bourbon and rye whiskeys are are all about the flavours of new oak and the flavours of rye, and sometimes wheat. I taste 5 to 7 different flavours in rye grain alone, and at least 4 flavours in new oak. That is a lot of different flavours to look for, but they may not be the flavours that you like or that you are used to observing. I can no more tell you that you should like those particular flavours than I can tell a seafood lover that he or she should like the taste of meat. If you are looking for the flavour of shellfish in your pork you are likely to be disappointed. So too, if you are used to looking for extremely subtle wood influences on a bed of malted barley then you are not going to find them in new wood, rye, and wheat.
Different styles of whisky are like different types of food. Is the taste of chicken "BETTER" than beef or fish or shellfish? You may like one of these foods or all of these foods, but they are different, despite all being foods. There is only so far you can go in comparing fundamentally different flavour profiles. Personally I like them all...and some days I feel like eating beef, on others chicken, and on others fish. It is exactly the same way for me in choosing to drink malts, ryes, bourbons, Irish whiskey, oat whiskey, or new make.
11 years ago 11Who liked this?
As usual @Victor, eloquently put.
I'd just like to say that I have recently been exploring bourbons and ryes and I would say that there is indeed complexity to be found. Bourbons and ryes, as others have mentioned, are quite simply different spirits from Scotch whisky. In my opinion this goes for Japanese whiskies as well. I have had many friends tell me 'Japanese whisky doesn't compare to Scotch!'. Well, if that's what you think, fair enough. But, while for obvious reasons they are more comparable to Scotch than bourbons are, in my opinion you shouldn't really be 'comparing' Japanese whiskies to anything. They are often very different beasts.
I've been finding that there is indeed complexity in all kinds of whisky, Canadian, Japanese, Irish etc. it's simply that they are all complex in their own ways.
11 years ago 3Who liked this?
I have to admit I will likely never be a bourbon or rye fan. I've dabbled with Forty Creek special releases but for the most part I stick with single malts or malt blends. From anywhere in the world. Am I a snob? No. But at the rate I drink I won't fully learn single malts, and absolutely I don't have the time or resources to branch out...
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
@Nozinan, I would suggest something regarding your comment about 'fully learning' single malts. I would suggest that exploring the various whiskies out there, and for that matter even other spirits, is almost essential to 'fully learn' single malt whisky. Personally I have been finding that the various blends, ryes, bourbons, wines etc. that I have had, contribute a great deal to my overall knowledge and appreciation of single malts.
I certainly understand your point regarding the amount you drink and your preference to stick with what you know and like. But I really think that if you did choose to branch out a bit, it would greatly enrich the experience of your whisky journey ; )
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
@victor. Thanks for the input. I guess I need to see them as different animals. Thanks for giving me a fresh perspective on things. Everyone else, thanks for being helpful as well.
11 years ago 0
@CanadianNinja
It's not just about sticking to what i know and like. I have a whole shelf of unopened, mostly never tasted whiskies that I'm waiting to get to. And I can't have 50 open bottles.
What I really need is a more active whisky club to help me drink it so I can replenish with new stock (in 10 years).
11 years ago 0
@Nozinan, having friends who share your passion for whisky is always a good thing! I'm lucky to have a few friends who are really into whisky as well, we sometimes get together to taste whiskies and finish off bottles... good times! ; )
11 years ago 0
@Maltmark looking at the annual sales of JD and JB I'd say they "compete" very well with the single malt. Perhaps, instead of compete the better word would be "compare". I'm sure comparing would bring the pro malt, pro american whiskey aficionados out in force. Personally, I have both in my cabinet and drink each depending on my mood.
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
A little off topic...I wonder where our much beloved scotch whisky would be if it weren't for ex-American bourbon/whisky barrels to age in?
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
@FMichael probably where it is now but more expensive. They could use ex-grain Whisky casks after they are emptied into casks. But they probably do now too. And they've likely maxed out the sherry cask supply.
11 years ago 0
@Nozinan I wonder if there weren't any American bourbon/whiskey barrels (also the American White Oak) if there would be much different flavor profiles in many distilleries offerings?
For example - would the Balvenie range be known for their "honey/vanilla" qualities if it weren't for the casks they get from the States?
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
I think you have raised an excellent point @FMichael. It would be very hard to convince me that many of the whiskies we consider to be top shelf quality, would still be as good if it weren't for ex-American bourbon barrels.
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
I'm a patriotic American, but I will take a good scotch over a good bourbon any day of the week, even though I feel the tug of British Imperialism every day and I have not forgotten 1812, unlike most Americans.
Yes, I know that America is usually blamed for being the global imperialist du jour, but I can't help feeling a nagging suspicion that my country's national consciousness is being designed, shaped, and controlled by globalists with their biggest financial nests in the City of London.
Be this as it may, when it comes to whisky (not "whiskey"), in my view, barley is just better than corn. It allows for more variations and it can be shaped into more interesting directions through distillation.
Scotch also offers a more complex "head buzz" than bourbon, which tends to make me more cranky and less contemplative and easy going.
Say what you will . . . yes, distillation does turn both corn and barley to alcohol that lacks the organic constituents of its former incarnation as a grain, blah blah blah, but to me there is a difference in the way each of these different alcohols affects the brain.
I also find gin to be more "heady and trippy" than vodka. And that's not just my opinion. I've heard others echo this sentiment, as well.
Rum is also less contemplative than scotch. There's nothing like a good scotch to stimulate intellectual conversations and/or pursuits.
One of my favorites for this task: Glenfarclas 21. It exudes malty goodness to me and ends with a "warm glow" so to speak. When I visit the Portland Art Museum, I stop by the Heathman for a snack and a Farc 21 before pressing on to consider the latest show on display at the museum.
When I am playing jazz (drums) at a bar with one of my bands, I tend to favor Highland Park 12 if I can find it. Usually, I have to settle for a Clynelish 14 year. Last Saturday, I ordered a Balvenie 12 and didn't much care for it.
While writing (fiction or nonfiction) I enjoy peated scotches. Phenols agree with the task of creative writing, especially if said writing has any hopes of being salable. Most of the reading public these days is so dumbed down by industrial pop culture and the media brain massage machine, that a bit of phenols help to smooth out the kinks on the page, so to speak.
So you see, I rarely favor bourbons. If I'm at a bar and I can't find a decent scotch, I resort to bourbon.
For instance, last Saturday when I was playing a gig (and got 30% off drinks) I wished I had ordered a Bookers instead of the Balvenie 12. The Bookers would have been more satisfying, I think.
Some bourbons I especially like are the higher end Four Roses offerings, Bookers, and Elmer T Lee. I would really like to taste a Pappy Van Winkles 15. It's been a long time since I've had a glass of that. Delicious.
As for a bad low end scotch or a well drink bourbon, I will drink neither. A bad beer is far more palatable if it is cold enough. I would rather not drink at all than be subjected to subpar scotches or bourbons.
Yes, I prefer to drink "whisky" not "whiskey." Hey, it's just one man's opinion. Can bourbon compete? Well, sure. It's way cheaper. And even if Americans get off their duffs and start making great scotch whisky (out of barley) and the prices end up becoming relatively equal, never under-estimate the power of a good marketing campaign to sway public opinion. We can thank the bacon industry and Edward Bernays for that.
I, for one, would very much like to see some well made American barley whisky. Yes, McCarthy's is a start, but it's only a few feet down the path towards greatness. I think if I had the capital, I could personally make a better scotch than McCarthy's. I would age it longer, age it in a warehouse on the Oregon coast somewhere near the sea, and use some great barrels from the Pacific Northwest wine industry. I would also encourage local vintners to experiment more with ports and sherries. The Pacific Northwest could be producing far better ports and sherries and those barrels could then be used by the Barley Whisky industry here with very little transport costs. Portland and Seaside Oregon are ideal places to create mashes and then to age execellent barley whisky. I have no doubt of that.
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
I have read posts from Victor as a reference point on about every issue. I think also that it is futile to compare a bourbon to a single malt scotch. But if I am not mistaken, it may be a fair question if we consider American bourbon and BLENDED scotch. Isn't blended scotch a bourbon mix? I have always thought American scotch was Blended. On that note: I think that Old Smuggler blended scotch is about the best there is and is comparable to Jack Daniels, Makers Mark .... However, W.L. Weller in my opinion rises above any bourbon on the market and any blended scotch for that matter. BUT, a single malt scotch will never fall it is the wine of whisky - period....was that too opinionated? hahaha
11 years ago 0
@scotchguy74, Hi -- I think that it may be helpful to lay out a few distinctions between all the varietals to which you refer. First, there can't be American scotch; Scotch is a descriptor of whiskies from Scotland! Bourbons are a predominantly corn derived spirit, at least 50% has to come from corn. After that, you have flavoring grains, usually rye or wheat. You also find rye whiskies, which are at least 50% rye grain as the base (rather than corn.) When you think of Scotch whisky here, you're probably thinking of single malt Scotch whisky, which is made from malted barley. The "single" really just refers to a single distillery. So, for instance, the Ardbeg Uigeadail is a single malt Scotch whisky, but it's a blend of various barrels from the same distillery. There are blended malts, which are malt whiskies from different distilleries. There are blended whiskies, which are blends of grain and malt from different distilleries. They're all made from different ingredients. With bourbon, you have independent bottlers (a la KBD) just as there are independent bottlers for Scotch whiskies.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by the following statement: BUT, a single malt scotch will never fall it is the wine of whisky - period....was that too opinionated?
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
@numen
I think what '74 meant was that the single malt was the apex of whisky, above all others. Kindof like Canada Dry calling itself the "champagne of gingerales"...
Just an interpretation of the statement...not an opinion of mine...
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
@numen I understand all that. I am just saying that there are differences between a single malt and a blended scotch. To me, the single malt scotch is by far the best whisky of all of them. I alluded to the fact that I am not claiming to be correct when I said that blended scotch seems to be a better comparison between bourbon and scotch. The single malt in my opinion is not even comparable to bourbon. They are not the same - you can't compare a Ford F150 to a Mercades.
11 years ago 0
@numen I do appreciate your post. I did not really understand what blended and single malt meant other than to think that a single malt was a more pure form of the whisky. I am trying to learn on this site and for the time being I am only capable of posting what I think is correct. I am partial to scotch (blended or single malt). I have recently enjoyed W.L. Weller and the less congenial Popcorn Sutton White Whiskey. I have been reading from a Whiskey/whisky encyclopedia trying to learn how its all made. Thanks!
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
@Scotchguy74. I agree with the statement "They are not the same - you can't compare a Ford F150 to a Mercades" if the best bourbon you've ever tried is W.L.Weller (and Im assuming you are referring to the W.L. weller $30 version, and not William Larue Weller from the Antique collection) To upgrade your F150, try Colonel E.H.Taylor, George T. Stagg, or Thomas H. Handy. Even Eagle Rare 17 and the just recently sampled Jeffersons Presidential 21 year old. These all rate above 91 in my book. I give W.L.Weller at most an 85 and that's the 12 year old. There are 2 others that are below that one in my book. I think that once you try any of these, you may see bourbon as a BMW M5 and Single Malt as a Luxury Mercedes.
11 years ago 2Who liked this?
@Maltmark Yep, the Weller 12 yo. is the best bourbon I have had. The Weller 107 isn't bad either. I don't have anything against Bourbon and will gladly look for those you mentioned. I haven't had that "new car smell" in a Bourbon for quit some time. Hope your right - I hope its not just the same old rodeo with a different "caramel" and "smoke" ...hahaha!
11 years ago 0
@scotchguy74. Most of the ones I mentioned wont be available until october/november. Try to find a specialized bar near your area, that way you can sample before you buy. I live in Orlando and go to Corona Cigar downtown. They have a 100 plus different single malts and over 50 different bourbons to sample. Good luck.
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
Can single malt compete with itself? Lowland, Speyside, Highland, Campbeltown, Islay, Island, Orkney, Skye - Japanese malt - Canadian malt - Irish malt - Indian malt - Swedish malt - Australian malt - New Zealand malt......
11 years ago 1Who liked this?
I love Bourbon and Rye. I've tried Stagg, Handy, E.H. Taylor, Eagle rare 17 and John J bowman Single barrel as my faves. Not sure if there is anything out there that is much better in the way of American Whisky, but the 2 qualities that I don't see here as opposed to some older Aged single malts are complexity and long finish. When I say complexity, I mean different flavors on the nose, taste and finish. I find this type of complexity in whiskies like HP 30, Glenmorangie Signet, Yamazaki 18 and other older single malts. As far as a long finish, I like the Ardbeg Oogy, Lagavulin and even Springbank. I haven't found an american whisky that has a long finish like these or the complexity of the older single malts. Please, someone shed some light on this conflict that I'm having.