Reply With QuoteFew decent blended malts out there, glenlivet founders reserve is superb st 22 a bottle.Originally Posted by DavidL
its difficult to compare unless you are a real expert I suppose.
We are really lucky to have top quality malts up here.
I'm talking about things like Talisker Skye, Jura Superstition and Ardmore Legacy, anything that doesn't have an age stated on the bottle. I've always wondered about this sort of thing and why it is more prevalent than it used to be.
Apparently the demand for single malt has outstripped supply so they all came up with this as an answer.
I can't decide if its a bit of a con, you're apparently buying a premium product but in reality its a mix of what they can find on the day, or whether there really is a scarcity of the real dated stuff and its going to be this or nothing. If the latter then why not buy blended and be done with it. Granted blended malt doesn't contain grain whisky but to my mind it isn't the product you think you are buying when choosing the single malt.
The price reflects this as they are invariably cheaper than the "equivalent" aged product.
I suppose the answer is try it and buy what you like but the whole principle niggles as a way around doing it properly and trying to persuade us it sort of is.
Few decent blended malts out there, glenlivet founders reserve is superb st 22 a bottle.
its difficult to compare unless you are a real expert I suppose.
We are really lucky to have top quality malts up here.
Dalmore valour and Johnny Walker amber blend are beautiful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's the difference between a blended malt, and ordinary blended whisky? Are they not the same thing?
Yep.
"Ordinary" blended whisky is a blend of malt(s) and grains. Blended malts, only the former. As with so much else in whisky, it's more to do with marketing than anything else.
J&B for me
I love my whisky, but don’t care what it’s made from or how old it is. There’s so much snobbery around it all its ridiculous. Same with wine. It’s literally a simple matter of taste so buy what tastes good to you.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of this trend.
Perhaps a tad cynical on the part of the big Single Malt producers branching out into a more diluted product, but I can't really blame them if they're capitalising on continued market demand in the face of production shortfall. They're a business, that's what they're meant to do. Perhaps a potential branding pitfall, but that's a risk for them to manage.
The more informed consumer should be capable of recognising the distinction and making their purchasing choice accordingly, whereas the less savvy buyer probably doesn't care as much about the finer tasting notes anyway and is happy with the brand name at a cheaper price.
I'm quite partial to a blended whiskey on occasion anyway - it's really about the end result in terms of taste, rather than what the bottle says. On the flip side, I've imbibed several Single Malts that were not to my preference as well.
Last edited by Stringer; 17th June 2019 at 10:15. Reason: Spelling
Compass Box amongst others have been doing very interesting blended malts for a while now. The first release of their Flaming Heart was one of the best whiskys I've ever had.
To my mind when its branded differently to the aged single malts that's fine - so Monkey Shoulder, Compass Box, Sheep Dip etc. I imagine these companies choose from several distilleries, maybe only those owned by the same larger holding co, so get what the distiller/mixer wants.
Its those branded the same as the traditional single malts that seem a bit of a swizz.
This is almost irrespective of what it tastes like. If it's good then all the better but I still feel its trying to be something its not, which is traditional, aged single malt.
What's your source for the accusation that Talisker Skye is a blend and not a single malt?
I'm looking at the bottle now. It says Single Malt Scotch Whisky.
I've a suspicion you're taking the absence of an age declaration to mean things that simply aren't true. And everyone else is taking your word for it.
Surely a blended malt, if done properly (to use the strengths of each malt rather to shift poorer stuff) could be nicer than a single malt?
That's had me looking at my bottle now! Single malt is indeed stated and that's why I bought it. I know sweet FA about the dark arts of whisky manufacture so can but go with what it says 'on the tin.
Edit: From a quick browse on t'net, it seems that Skye is probably aged about 5 years and manufacturers don't bother 'age labelling' until 10 years plus (for whatever reason). I stand to be corrected of course.
Last edited by Mouse; 17th June 2019 at 12:41.
About 15 years ago, a single malt that was extremely popular in abroad (Cardhu iirc) attempted to exploit the brand and stretch their capacity by turning it into a blended malt. The rest of the industry turned on them as one, and they later changed their mind. I'm no longer in touch with that world, so I don't know if any other distillery attempted the same thing, but given the kicking given to Cardhu, I would be surprised.
Looking online, I also see the words Single Malt on Ardmore Legacy and Jura Superstition.
This x 1 million
I bought 10 bottles of Indian whisky off a mate last year for £3 a bottle, and after he assured me he didn't go blind after his first 5 bottles I tucked in.
Lovely taste. Yummy.
" I love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly." as a famous person from the telly once said.
I also enjoy a Hibiki 17yr old I was given which sells for about £350/bottle these days. Caol Ila amazing. Bit of Jack Daniels Honey, nice with ice by the fireside.
A single malt can still be a blend of malts, the "single" refers to the bottle coming from a single distillery. The year stated on age statement whiskies is the year of the youngest whisky used in the bottling, for example a 15yr whisky would have nothing younger than a 15yr malt as part of its percentage, and may well have much older whiskies within it.
As for NAS whiskies, my feeling is that a lot of it is younger malts (at a minimum legal age of 3yr) as it's obviously easier to get them bottled. Stick a fancy name on it for marketing purposes to help negate the NAS part and Bob's your Father's brother.
As already said though, these NAS whiskies, whether they're single malts or otherwise, can still be great though, in my experience, are very hit and miss. One of my favourite whiskies is Amrut Fusion, a NAS whisky that, when you look it up, would have an age statement of only 4yr.
By "blend of malts" do you mean "several different barrels produced by one distillery blended together"?
Wikipedia: under the UK Scotch Whisky Regulations, single malt must be distilled using pot stills at a single distillery and must be aged for at least three years
Barrels of different ages blended together, as long as it's all from a single distillery it can be called a single malt.
Thanks for your posts CardShark.......the plot thickens! All very informative and I had no idea such 'tricks' were used in the industry.
So, even a stated 12 year old Macallan could still be a blended whisky, albeit with the 12 year old malt being the youngest of the blends. And a NAS Skye could be a three year old (to be legal) pure single malt - unlikely obviously, but it could be.
And I thought vintage Rolex was a minefield!
Last edited by Mouse; 17th June 2019 at 14:04.
Once you've got your head around it it's actually pretty simple :)
Single = single distillery
Age statement = age of youngest whisky in the bottle (pretty sure there will always be a mix of ages though not 100% on this)
Blend (labelled as) = blend of malts or malt/grain (refer to bottle) that would have each come from a different distillery.
NAS = could be a "single" or a "blend".
So your 12yr Mac would most likley be a blend of different age malts though they're all from the same distillery. The NAS Skye could still be a "single" malt (I haven't checked) though, due to it's young age, has been named rather than aged because a 3yr old age statement whisky holds little marketing appeal.
Sometimes there are clues on the bottle beyond the label as to what's inside it. For example, the Monkey Shoulder metioned in an ealier post is a NAS blend of 3 different Speyside malts and would use the word "blend" on the label, there are also 3 monkeys on the bottle itself - this refers to the 3 different distilleries.
^^ Helpful. Many thanks
^^^I don't think it's so much 'tricks', as just ensuring a distillery 'house' style can be maintained, and evening-out production (in terms of both flavour & quantity) across the years. It's blended, yes, but the blend is still one of malted whisky made from all in-house product, just across different casks & years of production. Provided the youngest malt whisky included meets the minimum age threshold, there's not really any dilution of what's being claimed.
It gets even murkier too, with a 'single single' malt being one that is bottled 100% from a single cask - obviously then the flavour can be yet more individual in nature.
It's quite a fascinating topic, and one I've only really scratched the surface of myself. I think I like the drinking more than the study!
I have to say, Glenlivet Founders Reserve is one of the least memorable NAS malts I've had. So inoffensive and lacking in flavours. Being a Scotsman, I cannot fail to be right ;).
Sent from my SM-G930F using TZ-UK mobile app
Hi Stringer......I used the word 'tricks' with due regard of course. I can now see the various legit reasons as to why distilleries use blending.
I wasn't aware of the 'single single' term......that's just added another level to the whole thing! Must look up some examples, though I suspect that the prices will be off the chart.
Yes, indeed - you pretty-much nailed it in your summary, so I knew you weren't using it in a derogatory way, and apologies if it came across as such.
Should mention, was in Costco last week...some cracking deals. Glenfarclas 25 at £94 and Bowmore 18 about £80ish. I picked up a JW Double Black for £24 and a Lagavulin 16 for £45.
Sent from my SM-G930F using TZ-UK mobile app
It never occurred to me that aged malt would have older vintages in there too. I suppose as that must be more costly for the distillery had I given it any thought I'd have imagined they would have marketed this fact and charged for it! I can see how a distiller may want to do this but not necessarily that the bean counters and marketing men would agree.
Someone queried Skye. Having looked at it it's clearly a NAS but I can't see any mention of blending whereas Storm there definitely is. Difference? Maybe Skye is a traditional aged single malt but so young they daren't use it.
I suppose if you're short of stock you can make more and then have it available sooner to use in very young malt and then the blends. You just market your way out of it.
Interestingly I have always kept a bottle of Aberlour A'bunadh on the shelf for odd occasions. I like it but its quite a kick. Now whilst they have a batch number they don't have an age per se. I'm not sure why really. By my own theory they would give it an age. Maybe the batch is traceable. Sadly I gather they have hiked the price recently so gone are the days of Waitrose at about £35-40 a bottle. A quick goggle suggest twice this is likely now.
Glendronach 18 and 21 are currently older than the age because the distillery was closed for a number of years (96-03) and so the 18yo, the current batch which was vatted and released in 2019, must by default be a minimum of 24/5 years old
Basically everything on the market is vatted from a number of barrels, even single malts, unless it states that it was from a single cask.
Talisker Skye and Storm are both single malts, because they only contain Talisker. It would not be legal for the Storm to be called 'Talisker' if it contained whisky from another distillery under current rules. It would have to be a Johnnie Walker or other Diageo brand.
Most NAS whisky is <10yo, because marketing people think that a number <10 is unpalatable to whisky buyers. A'Bunadh is generally bottled at 6-8yo, so marketers think sales would go down if this was announced. However quality is more dependent on the a) maturation experience (i.e. climate) and quality of the casks used.
Examples:
Most Indian bottlings and Kavalan (Taiwan) don't use age statements because their whisky "ages" (i.e. takes on the flavours from the wood in the cask) 3-4 times faster than in Scotland because of the humid climate.
Bruichladdich don't put too many age statements on but they care about terroir and use good casks. They also add a QR code you can use to check the cask breakdown and age of the whisky inside the bottle.
I have also tried a 3 year old from the London distillery, Bimber, and tasted blind you would never tell because it was aged in a 30year old solera PX sherry cask from a venerable Spanish bodega.
Glenlivet Founders Reserve, on the other hand, is hogswash aged in their most tired, cheap bourbon casks for 3 years and one day.
Last edited by IanBear; 18th June 2019 at 11:38.
There’s also the trick Macallan are doing now where they don’t give an age just a colour as they started to run out of old whiskey to put age markers on, doesn’t say it’s bad it’s just you might just have a 5 year old in the same bottle as a 40 year old to get to the required blend.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Talking of macallan have you seen the price of macallan 12 year old now I bought a bottle for £19 a few years ago from the coop when they changed the packaging I should have bought loads of it
I think a lot of people here are labouring under the misconception that any given bottle of "10 Year Old (let's say) Single Malt" comes from a cask that's distilled to a recipe and then left in the back of a maturation warehouse for ten years, then simply taken off the rack and bottled.
Every decent whisky manufacturer blends their single malts to create that particular expression. The stated age is merely the youngest whisky (and usually the lion's share) that goes into the blend. It takes a lot of skill to marry the available aged casks to create a consistent bottle.
These newer blends with no age declaration are a product of two things: increased demand, meaning certain brands did not have enough aged barrels to produce their standard aged expressions. And the increasing desire among distillers to experiment with expressions. It shows off their skills that they can create different types of the same brand using the available spirit.
You may see this as a "con", but you'll find the original expressions are still available, for the most part. I've tried a lot, and liked a few. The more choice available, the better, in my opinion.
When I was a kid a posh bottle of Scotch was JW Red Label.
I know there is a greater demand for single malt nowadays, but there does seem to be a drastic decline in Bells, Teachers, Grouse etc to balance things up a bit.
I can only conclude it has got cheaper in real terms, and we can all afford a drop of the good stuff.
I think it's more that people's tastes have become more discerning. Even when I was first going to pubs in the late 90s it was out of the ordinary to find more than two whiskies - usually JW or Bells on an optic, as you said, and Jack Daniels or Jim Beam. So I never drank whisky in the pub. Then the big brands like Diageo started to market their single malts, and it drove a demand. People tasted a Talisker or Oban, and discovered whisky was actually quite nice.
Posting Permissions