SCOTCH Whisky Discussion

[Poisoned Youth]

And what makes one a true Scotch whisky fan?

If the packaging design was produced on a laptop, it's not true scotch.

Jokes aside, I think the short answer to that would be that only whisky with an age statement (preferably 10-12 years+) is what the "true scotch whisky fan" would approve of.

[Gizmotron]

If the packaging design was produced on a laptop, it's not true scotch.

Jokes aside, I think the short answer to that would be that only whisky with an age statement (preferably 10-12 years+) is what the "true scotch whisky fan" would approve of.

Have we discussed the trend towards the age statement bottles disappearing? It is a full subject. On the one hand, the industry trained us for decades to accept nothing but age statement whiskies and now they are trying to tell us that it is not important. On the other hand, many of the non-age statement bottlings I have tried are fantastic. I keep an open mind but it has been a bit of a turbulent landscape the last few years as the change takes hold. At the very least, the disappearance of many of of our trusty favorites has been frustrating.

[Staun]

Have we discussed the trend towards the age statement bottles disappearing? It is a full subject. On the one hand, the industry trained us for decades to accept nothing but age statement whiskies and now they are trying to tell us that it is not important. On the other hand, many of the non-age statement bottlings I have tried are fantastic. I keep an open mind but it has been a bit of a turbulent landscape the last few years as the change takes hold. At the very least, the disappearance of many of of our trusty favorites has been frustrating.

So how are you supposed to know how old? My pallet is to immature and stupid to know the difference yet.

[Poisoned Youth]

Have we discussed the trend towards the age statement bottles disappearing? It is a full subject. On the one hand, the industry trained us for decades to accept nothing but age statement whiskies and now they are trying to tell us that it is not important. On the other hand, many of the non-age statement bottlings I have tried are fantastic. I keep an open mind but it has been a bit of a turbulent landscape the last few years as the change takes hold. At the very least, the disappearance of many of of our trusty favorites has been frustrating.

So how are you supposed to know how old? My pallet is to immature and stupid to know the difference yet.

From everything I've read, the trend towards NAS (non-age statement) expressions is due to the increased international demand for the product. Supply was dwindling and they couldn't keep up. So distilleries had to come up with creative ways to make product faster while maintaining a certain level of expectation and quality. One could also point to how the demographics regarding the alcohol history in general has shifted from those people interested in drinking the same classic beer/wine/liquor to wanting a variety to choose from. And those distilleries could turn product loyalty into brand loyalty (following the craft beer model).

And like Gizmo stated, there are fantastic NAS bottlings. So in the end, maybe the age statement was - in truth - the actual con all along? All that really matters in the long run is "is it tasty?" and "did you pay a fair price?". I think the former is self-evident. I think the latter takes some time to adjust to because we are used to higher age = higher quality= higher price.

People in this thread and that I know personally will have reservations in that regard. They see NAS as inherently below a 12 year benchmark and therefore assign less value to it. So when there are NAS bottles out there for $50, $75, $100 or greater, some will refuse to pay for it.

Sometimes NAS bottles will have some age data behind it if you research. But the reality is that many of them are "blends" of different aged whiskies at the distillery - which is why you can't slap an age on it. You'll read stuff about how a particular NAS is comprised of a mix of 5-7 year old whisky, 8-10 year old, and 15 year old stock. But you don't know the percentages (though you could make assumptions).

NAS is here to stay. I think in the future you'll see age statement whiskys go up in price and the NAS will take over the price points in the $30-75 range.

[Gizmotron]

From everything I've read, the trend towards NAS (non-age statement) expressions is due to the increased international demand for the product. Supply was dwindling and they couldn't keep up. So distilleries had to come up with creative ways to make product faster while maintaining a certain level of expectation and quality. One could also point to how the demographics regarding the alcohol history in general has shifted from those people interested in drinking the same classic beer/wine/liquor to wanting a variety to choose from. And those distilleries could turn product loyalty into brand loyalty (following the craft beer model).

And like Gizmo stated, there are fantastic NAS bottlings. So in the end, maybe the age statement was - in truth - the actual con all along? All that really matters in the long run is "is it tasty?" and "did you pay a fair price?". I think the former is self-evident. I think the latter takes some time to adjust to because we are used to higher age = higher quality= higher price.

People in this thread and that I know personally will have reservations in that regard. They see NAS as inherently below a 12 year benchmark and therefore assign less value to it. So when there are NAS bottles out there for $50, $75, $100 or greater, some will refuse to pay for it.

Sometimes NAS bottles will have some age data behind it if you research. But the reality is that many of them are "blends" of different aged whiskies at the distillery - which is why you can't slap an age on it. You'll read stuff about how a particular NAS is comprised of a mix of 5-7 year old whisky, 8-10 year old, and 15 year old stock. But you don't know the percentages (though you could make assumptions).

NAS is here to stay. I think in the future you'll see age statement whiskys go up in price and the NAS will take over the price points in the $30-75 range.

Great post.
You certainly have my priorities identified: does it taste good? Is it worth the price?

What really bugs me is how a number of great, value-priced, barrel-strength bottles have gone away. (I am primarily looking at you, The Macallan.)
I really think that flavors are much more intense at higher proofs...

There is still Aberlour A'bundah, though (despite its higher and higher price)!

[Poisoned Youth]

Great post.
You certainly have my priorities identified: does it taste good? Is it worth the price?

What really bugs me is how a number of great, value-priced, barrel-strength bottles have gone away. (I am primarily looking at you, The Macallan.)
I really think that flavors are much more intense at higher proofs...

There is still Aberlour A'bundah, though (despite its higher and higher price)!

Well do I have news for you then:



This Classic Cut is pretty new. It essentially replaces the Macallan Cask Strength (which incidentally I grabbed two bottles back when it was going out of circulation). I got a bottle of the Classic Cut in December (our local store had a 20% off 1-day sale). All I can say is that it's "very good stuff" but not quite as good as the old Cask Strength. I saw a review on this where a guy tested this, the CS, and the old, old bottlings of CS. He makes reference that the whisky was matured in "seasoned sherry casks" which implies they weren't actual sherry casks to begin with. So something to note. I do like it though.

And, yes, A'bunadh is fantastic.

If you're looking for another sherry bomb, I suggest Glenfarclas 105 if you haven't tried it. It's very confusing because I always assumed 105 referred to it being 105 proof, but actually refers to the "British proof" equivalent which is 120.

[Gizmotron]

Well do I have news for you then:



This Classic Cut is pretty new. It essentially replaces the Macallan Cask Strength (which incidentally I grabbed two bottles back when it was going out of circulation). I got a bottle of the Classic Cut in December (our local store had a 20% off 1-day sale). All I can say is that it's "very good stuff" but not quite as good as the old Cask Strength. I saw a review on this where a guy tested this, the CS, and the old, old bottlings of CS. He makes reference that the whisky was matured in "seasoned sherry casks" which implies they weren't actual sherry casks to begin with. So something to note. I do like it though.

And, yes, A'bunadh is fantastic.

If you're looking for another sherry bomb, I suggest Glenfarclas 105 if you haven't tried it. It's very confusing because I always assumed 105 referred to it being 105 proof, but actually refers to the "British proof" equivalent which is 120.

I’d like to try the Classic Cut, but at $91 at the Big Box Liquor Store it is more than AA or a few other nice high-proof bottles. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising...The Macallan hasn’t been inexpensive in along time. So I guess the price is to be expected.

The Glenfarclas 105 was even more than that when I got it a few years ago. I only get to it every so often because it is so special. I’d say it and AA are my favorites in the cask strength range.

Because of the high OH level of these expressions, they go farther. You drink less. Which makes them a value purchase. Right?

All I know is that slowly sipping this stuff is one of the joys of life.

[Trane]

I'm down to just 5 bottles (3 in Brussels - incuding two Morangie - Nectar d'Or and Bacalta - and one Aberlour - 18 yo) and twi in North Holland (Ab'Dunah and the "local" Frysk Hynder - aged in red burgundy casks) a,nd one in the office (for vistors ) the Belgian Gouden Carolus - made from beer malts), so I'll have to start hunting for some more

From everything I've read, the trend towards NAS (non-age statement) expressions is due to the increased international demand for the product. Supply was dwindling and they couldn't keep up. So distilleries had to come up with creative ways to make product faster while maintaining a certain level of expectation and quality. One could also point to how the demographics regarding the alcohol history in general has shifted from those people interested in drinking the same classic beer/wine/liquor to wanting a variety to choose from. And those distilleries could turn product loyalty into brand loyalty (following the craft beer model).

And like Gizmo stated, there are fantastic NAS bottlings. So in the end, maybe the age statement was - in truth - the actual con all along? All that really matters in the long run is "is it tasty?" and "did you pay a fair price?". I think the former is self-evident. I think the latter takes some time to adjust to because we are used to higher age = higher quality= higher price.

People in this thread and that I know personally will have reservations in that regard. They see NAS as inherently below a 12 year benchmark and therefore assign less value to it. So when there are NAS bottles out there for $50, $75, $100 or greater, some will refuse to pay for it.

NAS is here to stay. I think in the future you'll see age statement whiskys go up in price and the NAS will take over the price points in the $30-75 range.

Well, I've had some big disappointment in those NAS - special bottlings, like Morangie's Madeira finish (+/- 40.00).... but then again, the Bacalta is marvellous (at 80.00, though) - almost makes me wish that I'd bought a second bottle . But yeah, your post is great and I must say that I am wary of paying hefty prices for NAS.

As for growing international demand, we're even seeing silent distilleries being revived after 40 to 60 years of inactivity... I've even seen Ledaig bottles

as for the age-statement, I don't think it is a con, because there is an important increase in taste between a 10 and an 18 expression... But I suspect that soon or later some scandals will arrive about not telling the truth or the mélanges operated in certain batches.

[Lopez]

Surely you mean 700 ml

Checked my local liquor store and McClelland's (at least in the USA) comes in 750-ml bottles. At $20.99 a bottle, not a bad entry-level single malt.

[Jerjo]

I was at a friend's last year and the offering for Scotch was a bottle of the house brand (Kirkland) from Costco! And goddammit it was actually drinkable.

[adap2it]

Checked my local liquor store and McClelland's (at least in the USA) comes in 750-ml bottles. At $20.99 a bottle, not a bad entry-level single malt.

It's 700ml in Europe, ???https://thewhiskeywash.com/whiskey-s...ling-standard/

[adap2it]

I was at a friend's last year and the offering for Scotch was a bottle of the house brand (Kirkland) from Costco! And goddammit it was actually drinkable.

Kirkland house brands of most things are usually of high quality. They also have some excellent wines with the Kirkland brand.

[Duncan Glenday]

I was at a friend's last year and the offering for Scotch was a bottle of the house brand (Kirkland) from Costco! And goddammit it was actually drinkable.

Kirkland house brands of most things are usually of high quality. They also have some excellent wines with the Kirkland brand.

Not where I live. No beer, wine or liquor can be sold in any grocery store anywhere in the county. (Or is it the whole State? I don't recall.)

The strongest thing our Costco sells is root beer.

[Klonk]

Every time I open this thread my liver yells, "NOOOOO!"

[Buddhabreath]

That's weird, every time I open the thread my liver yells "WHERE THE FUCK'S THE BOOZE?!"

[Lopez]

Kirkland house brands of most things are usually of high quality. They also have some excellent wines with the Kirkland brand.

A year or so ago, I bought a case of beer with the Kirkland brand at Costco in Ft. Myers, Fla. It was the cheapest they had and it was not bad at all. The mouthfeel was a bit thinner than craft beers, but the taste was better than most national brands. Too bad they don't sell Kirkland brand adult beverages at the Costcos in the Boston area. They do have a nice selection, though, of other large and small brands.

[Trane]

Just bought the Highland Park 10Y called Viking Scar.... First time I buy a HP (tasted a few, though years ago), but I had bought the Scapa from the same Orkney Islands. Scapa is hardly peated and I remùmeber it very smooth... doubt the HPVS will be in the similar vein, especially given the name referen,ce.

Hopefully it isn't too peated (they say lightly on the box), but I'll check out with a buddy if we do a 50/50 in case it's too much.

[Klonk]

Just bought the Highland Park 10Y called Viking Scar.... First time I buy a HP (tasted a few, though years ago), but I had bought the Scapa from the same Orkney Islands. Scapa is hardly peated and I remùmeber it very smooth... doubt the HPVS will be in the similar vein, especially given the name referen,ce.

Hopefully it isn't too peated (they say lightly on the box), but I'll check out with a buddy if we do a 50/50 in case it's too much.

I didn't like this one at all sorry to say. You may though and I hope you do! Compared to all the flavors bursting from all the recommendations here, I thought this one was just a burn and that's it. Not much tongue titilating.

[BaldJean]

Springbank, 21 years old. best whisky in the world (and incredibly expensive)

springbank-21-years.jpg

[Klonk]

Here is one of my new favorites:



(pronounced "broock-laddie")

The amount of flavor and richness is difficult to describe and match. But if you're a fan of Laphroaig, Kilchoman, and/or Ardbeg Corryvreckan or Uigeadail, this is a must try.

OK man, this is the next bottle for me. Opening tonight. If I don't like it I will make every post political for 3 straight days.

[Dave (in MA)]

I was at a friend's last year and the offering for Scotch was a bottle of the house brand (Kirkland) from Costco! And goddammit it was actually drinkable.

I've had it twice and both times I was wearing pants of the same brand name.

[Dave (in MA)]

I know I'll get hung by others here but I do like one ice cube in my whiskey.

That's fine by me but I usually just have one of these with a shot in it, and there's no room for ice.

[Trane]

Just bought the Highland Park 10Y called Viking Scar.... First time I buy a HP (tasted a few, though years ago), but I had bought the Scapa from the same Orkney Islands. Scapa is hardly peated and I remùmeber it very smooth... doubt the HPVS will be in the similar vein, especially given the name referen,ce.

Hopefully it isn't too peated (they say lightly on the box), but I'll check out with a buddy if we do a 50/50 in case it's too much.

I didn't like this one at all sorry to say. You may though and I hope you do! Compared to all the flavors bursting from all the recommendations here, I thought this one was just a burn and that's it. Not much tongue titilating.

Well, I liked it enough that I wanted to make it 50/50,but my buddy insisted on taking it home. Now that my curiosity is quenched, I may not buy a bottle again. Didn't really spot the citrus or vanilla, but the pepper and light peat well. Thankfully no smoke, though

I just got me a bottle of that Auchentoshan Three Woods (double the price of the HP, though ), and there ain't no way I will let him take home that bottle

That stuff is daaaaark, duuude

[Yves]

OK man, this is the next bottle for me. Opening tonight. If I don't like it I will make every post political for 3 straight days.

I actually use that metal container on my kitchen counter, to place my large cooking utentils in. Just put a small towel in the bottom of it so they don't drop all the way in. Looks really cool!

[Klonk]

So I thought the Port Charlotte was just ok. Probably won't get it again. Next up is Talisker.