Scotch Whisky price vs quality

[Domino Quartz]

As indicated by the title of this thread, I am interested in price vs. quality regarding Scotch Whisky. Specifically, how much per bottle a reasonably good quality whisky would cost. Some time ago, I tasted some whisky, and found that I quite liked the taste. How much would a reasonably good quality bottle cost, and what indications of quality would I need to look for? Thanks in advance.

[Heliomance]

As indicated by the title of this thread, I am interested in price vs. quality regarding Scotch Whisky. Specifically, how much per bottle a reasonably good quality whisky would cost. Some time ago, I tasted some whisky, and found that I quite liked the taste. How much would a reasonably good quality bottle cost, and what indications of quality would I need to look for? Thanks in advance.

Disclaimer: I'm a UK dweller, advice may be less applicable if you aren't.

Looking around for whisky for my dad for Christmas last year, the good stuff starts at around £30 for a bottle or so. I'm afraid I'm not a whisky connoisseur myself, so I can't give you the taste characteristics of each distillery (they do vary a lot, so it may take a while to find one you really like). What you're looking for, though, is single malt scotch - that means that it's made entirely from malt, and entirely at one distillery.

Age statements are a secondary quality indicator. By law, anything marketed as Scotch whisky must have been matured for at least 3 years in the cask, and if the bottle doesn't state an age that's likely what you'll get. If you have more money to throw at it, you can get guaranteed age Scotch, which has an age statement on the bottle (eg "10-year old") which has been matured for that long, but that can get expensive fast. I do believe that older whiskies are generally considered better though.

[Feytalist]

Browser ate my entire detailed post... sigh.

Since I'm too lazy to type the whole thing out again, The Whisky Exchange (www.thewhiskyexchange.com) is a nice resource to find out more about different brands and ages of whiskies, with prices, taste profiles and user ratings and recommendations for each brand. Quite useful as a lookup guide.

But the best thing to do, as with most things, is practice practice practice :smallbiggrin: It's okay to start off with slightly less expensive brands to see what you like. There's a bit of snobbery around scotch (and rightly so, sometimes), but in the end it's all about what you enjoy. Not worth it, otherwise.

[Jay R]

Warning. I am not well-trained on this subject. These comments are based on my experience, and work for me.

It depends a great deal what “a reasonably good quality whisky” means to you. Generally, I find that Bourbon is usually better than Scotch for my purposes. Right now, where I live, Evan Williams is far better than anything else close to the price. This isn’t Scotch, but it’s the best cheap whiskey* – a very different thing. It also may not be true where you live. I'm in America, so Scotch is imported but Bourbon is domestic. Therefore I don't know anything about the cheap Scotches. Most workers at your local liquor store can tell you what’s the best available where you are now. DO NOT ask during a big sale, or he’ll suggest what they’ve just put on sale to get rid of.

In the moderate price range, I can almost always find an Irish whiskey that is better than any similarly priced Scotch whisky. The better employees at the liquor store can usually answer this question for you. Again, don't ask during a sale. Give a firm price range that’s slightly less than you’re willing to spend, because he or she will probably recommend at least one that’s slightly above your price range. This is probably the one you want.

Once you get into the really good Scotches, the biggest issues are taste. There’s a continuum from delicate to smoky, and another one from light to rich. Once you know what kind of Scotch you like, you can get a good recommendation in your price range. But you must know your taste first. For instance, I prefer a light, smoky Scotch to even the most expensive heavy, delicate Scotches.

If you know your taste, then in the upper ranges, cost is usually an excellent guide to quality. You get what you pay for. The Scotch expert at a large liquor store can help you, and will love the chance to talk about Scotches. [If he isn't smiling while he talks about it, you're asking the wrong person.]

*Note: A distinction is often (not always) made between Irish or American whiskey with an "e", and Scotch whisky without the "e". I think this distinction is slowly going away, but it's what I learned.

[Peelee]

What scotch pairs best with coke?

[KuReshtin]

As has been mentioned before, your first port of call is to look for a single malt whisky. then it depends on what type of flavour you want. Whiskies from different regions taste differently from each other, and even whiskies from the same region can very greatly in taste even if they're produced only a mile or two apart.

Try to see if there are any whisky tasting events organised around where you live. They're usually a great way to taste several different whiskies and get a taste for what type you prefer. There are also a lot of experts that are willing to tell you all about the differences and nuances between different distilleries and whiskies.

A note on the aged whiskies, by the way. Once bottled, the whisky will not continue to age. So a bottle of 10-year old whisky that was bottled in 1995 and hasn't been opened will still be a 10-year old when it is opened in 2017.

Also remember. Whisky is not supposed to be had 'on the rocks'. The ice cools the whisky and distorts the taste. If you think that your whisky is a bit too strong for your liking, you can use a dash of water to dilute it. Usually, this actually enhances the flavour.



*Note: A distinction is often (not always) made between Irish or American whiskey with an "e", and Scotch whisky without the "e". I think this distinction is slowly going away, but it's what I learned.
If you're talking to a Scot, the distinction is very real and still a subject where the Scot will firmly assert that whisky is spelled without the 'e'.


What scotch pairs best with coke?

If you're going to ruin scotch with coke, then just use anything you can find. generally speaking, people who drink whisky and Coke doesn't drink it for the taste. They drink it to get sloshed.

[thorgrim29]

Over here single malt starts to be worth buying at roughly 70$ (and the exchange rate is about 1 for 1), but liquor prices vary wildly from place to place. That range get you a bottle of Glenmorangie Original (not smoky, at all, fine taste), or a Laphroaig quarter cask bottle (sledgehammer of smokiness), things like that. Your best bet is probably going to be to find a bar with a good selection and either go to an event or pick a slow night an ask the bartender to walk you through the styles and regions. I'm simplifying a LOT here but Islay (pronounced ayla) scotch is very smoky because the barley is cooked over peat smoke, highland is not smoky and usually dry, and speyside is usually not smoky and a bit sweeter. Avoid Highland Park and Macallan, they make good stuff but you pay too much for the name.

In the uk they have sites online that sell you drams (glass-fulls) for tasting, maybe that's a thing over where you are.

Finally about casks. Most bottles are going to be bourbon cask, which means they are matured in american oak casks previously used for bourbon (which are cheap since they can only be used once for bourbon), that gives it a sharper taste and a bit of vanilla taste. The next most common is sherry (european oak, used for sherry), going to be a darker spirit, sweeter, more complex. Then you have all sorts of other casks and mixes.

[JeenLeen]

What scotch pairs best with coke?

If you're going to ruin scotch with coke, then just use anything you can find. generally speaking, people who drink whisky and Coke doesn't drink it for the taste. They drink it to get sloshed.
I'll second this. I really like whiskey or bourbon with coke, both for taste and intoxication (it can really cut the sharpness of some bourbon without taking away all the flavor), but the I find the flavor of Scotch to be such that it doesn't blend well.

A good scotch, in my opinion, is Dewar's (might have the spelling slightly off with the vowels). Not super expensive, not cheap, and good taste.
That said, I have tried Dewar's with Coke and it was... not terrible, but definitely tasted better straight.

[Aedilred]

Good whisky usually starts from around £30 per bottle, although that's a rough price and you might be able to get it cheaper. The whisky will tend to be marked as one of three types: blended whisky, single malt, and blended scotch. That's in the UK, though, and it may be slightly different in NZ.

Single malt whisky is generally considered the top-of-the-range stuff. This will be made from a single batch at a single distillery, the traditional way, matured in wooden barrels and so forth. Generally anything that's marked as single malt is going to be pretty good.

Blended scotch, or single malt blend, tends to be a blend of single malts. These can be exceptionally good, and command a price similar to or even higher than the single malts themselves. Or they can be made up effectively from remaindered single malt and thus be somewhat cheaper. However it remains real whisky, unlike...

Blended whisky. which can cover a variety of sins but is often not matured for very long if at all, with the characteristic golden colour of whisky, and much of the flavour, being added artificially. It tends to be cheap, comparable to vodka (indeed, one might consider that it's basically vodka with added food colouring and smoke flavour). May or may not be marked as "Scotch" depending on local laws. Beware of this masquerading as blended single malts.

Something else to look at is the alcohol content. 37.5% is about standard for single malts, so while the drink is noticeably alcoholic it is fairly well balanced with the other flavours. Some whiskies however are rather stronger, up to about 45%, which gives them more of a kick. Age will also, obviously, make a difference, but if you are looking for affordable whiskies you will probably not be looking at anything older than a 10-12-year whisky anyway.

If you're going to mix the whisky with coke or ginger ale, there's no point using anything other than a relatively cheap blend, and if you're seen putting coke in a single malt in some parts of the world you'll be tarred and feathered. The flavour of the mixer will usually overpower the taste of the whisky. In more subtle cocktails, there may be a case for a single malt, but it's still generally preferable to use a good blend or a bourbon, depending on the requirements of the cocktail.


Within single malts (and good blends) there is a huge range of flavour and realistically the only way to find out which you like is to try them. At one end of the scale is something like Glenmorangie, which is very smooth, and a good whisky for people who are trying to get into drinking it. At the other is something like Laphroaig, which is rich, smoky and very peaty, and may be something of an acquired taste.

You can sometimes get an idea of roughly what a whisky will taste like by where it's from. Often it will say on the bottle which region of Scotland the distillery is based in. Islay whiskies tend to be rough and peaty, while Speyside and Highland whiskies are often rather lighter and smoother.

Glenfiddich, Glenlivet and Glenmorangie are all "accessible" whiskies which tend to be affordable - towards the lower end of the price bracket - and have a good reputation. While it is possible to spend hundreds of pounds on whisky I would not advise spending more than about £50 on a bottle at UK prices (international prices may vary) and even then only on very special occasions. Unless you are a real whisky nut/connossieur who is really going to appreciate the difference/quality. There is a law of diminishing returns as in all things.

[Winter_Wolf]

A note on the aged whiskies, by the way. Once bottled, the whisky will not continue to age. So a bottle of 10-year old whisky that was bottled in 1995 and hasn't been opened will still be a 10-year old when it is opened in 2017.

Cool. I learned something about whisky today. I'll have a hell of a time convincing people that they're kidding themselves about why they're letting a bottle of Scotch sit on their shelf for years, though.


Also remember. Whisky is not supposed to be had 'on the rocks'. The ice cools the whisky and distorts the taste. If you think that your whisky is a bit too strong for your liking, you can use a dash of water to dilute it. Usually, this actually enhances the flavour.

But I'll probably ignore you on this point. Then again I'm a slow sipper and the drink usually sits long enough that the ice has melted away before I'm finishing. Out of curiosity, what's your stance on whisky stones? Same? One time I had it literally on the rocks and I couldn't enjoy my drink because I was afraid I'd crack a tooth.



If you're going to ruin scotch with coke, then just use anything you can find. generally speaking, people who drink whisky and Coke doesn't drink it for the taste. They drink it to get sloshed.

I agree with that, but I'd even go so far as to say get the cheapest stuff you can tolerate and save your money.

[Dappershire]

I was lucky, by the time I got into drinking, I had already matured past the common "Lets get drunk on Rainier Lite" stage. I heavily classed up my act by the time the Marines got me drinking heavily.
A "good" bottle of Scotch should cost you about $50. With Scotch, higher is usually better. There are very few costly Scotches that aren't worth the price.
As for mixing with soda, do that and I will hunt you. I will find you. And I will make you drink rotgut til you pass out.
Use whiskey for that.
Bourbon is your choice, but as a general rule, I don't trust anything from Kentucky.

If you want to try something interesting, try a Japanese Whiskey. They rarely do things in half measures, and really learned the art.

Try a blended whiskey, you might prefer them to single malts.

And at least once, try a glass of Laphroaig. It is peaty as hell, but unique. You may hate it, or it may change your tongue forever.

[Beleriphon]

Alright, so here's the deal with Scotch. Which is to say whisky produced in Scotland as opposed say bourbon whiskey or Canadian whiskey. There are lots and lots of different types to get. In fact you might find that you like different kinds of whisky above and beyond scotch. Crown Royal and Canadian Club are two types of classic Canadian whisky, although I'm personally fond of 40 Creek Whiskey, specifically their Copper Pot blend.

As for scotch my favourite of the different types I've tried I like Glenfiddich 15 year old scotch the best. As a scotch lover I'd incidentally love to get myself a bottle of Glenfiddich 40 year old reserve. To be clear, that's scotch aged for 40 years in a cask before bottling. Its £3,850 a bottle, or for me CAD6,600 you know 4 months wages.

All that being said you're looking for scotch, you want single malt and a indication of how long it has been aged. I'd generally not go for less than 5 years myself. Longer generally means tastier, but it also means more expensive since the distiller can't sell their product for a longer period of time after production. At any rate I generally find in Canada a good bottle of scotch would cost me $50 to $70 depending on brand, I'm not sure what the New Zealand equivalent would be. Keep in mind as well if you like scotch, you might find yourself enjoying local distillers whiskey.

[JeenLeen]

This is kinda a tangential question, but it might help qualify some of the advice here (at least for me if not most).

What is the difference (if any) between Scotch, Scotch whiskey, whiskey, bourbon, and <nation here: Canadian/Irish/etc> whiskey? (I'm ignoring whether or not the 'e' should be in whiskey in this list.)

[scalyfreak]

While it is possible to spend hundreds of pounds on whisky I would not advise spending more than about £50 on a bottle at UK prices (international prices may vary) and even then only on very special occasions. Unless you are a real whisky nut/connossieur who is really going to appreciate the difference/quality. There is a law of diminishing returns as in all things.

Thank you. This needed to be said.

Now that it has been said, it is important to remember that with scotch and other forms of whisky (and whiskey), in the end it all comes down to personal preference. I might be willing to pay more for a specific brand than you are, because of how much I enjoy the flavor of that particular single malt.

So don't look too hard at the price tag. There is a correlation between price and quality, yes, but only to a point. Studies have been done that proved that even the most dedicated and well educated wine connoisseur will enjoy the flavor of a wine more if they believe it to be expensive. The same applies to scotch.


But I'll probably ignore you on this point. Then again I'm a slow sipper and the drink usually sits long enough that the ice has melted away before I'm finishing. Out of curiosity, what's your stance on whisky stones? Same? One time I had it literally on the rocks and I couldn't enjoy my drink because I was afraid I'd crack a tooth.

I love my whisky stones. I store my scotch in the pantry, where it's a bit cooler than the rest of the house, mainly because I just don't like drinking it at room temperature. The whisky stones keep the scotch cool, without making it cold enough to distort the flavor, and of course there is the great benefit that rocks do not melt and water down a drink over time.

Ice in whisky? Only if it's mixed with ginger ale. :smallsmile:

[tomandtish]

This is kinda a tangential question, but it might help qualify some of the advice here (at least for me if not most).

What is the difference (if any) between Scotch, Scotch whiskey, whiskey, bourbon, and <nation here: Canadian/Irish/etc> whiskey? (I'm ignoring whether or not the 'e' should be in whiskey in this list.)

In the US:

Difference between Scotch and whiskey is location. Whiskey is brewed in the US, Scotch in Scotland.

To be called Bourbon, your mash has to be at least 51% corn, must be stored in charred oak, and you can't have any additives.

Note that you'll even see a lot of "bourbon whiskeys", which usually means they are 51% or more corn, but added something else, so they are technically a whiskey, not a bourbon.

[Aedilred]

This is kinda a tangential question, but it might help qualify some of the advice here (at least for me if not most).

What is the difference (if any) between Scotch, Scotch whiskey, whiskey, bourbon, and <nation here: Canadian/Irish/etc> whiskey? (I'm ignoring whether or not the 'e' should be in whiskey in this list.)
There are always going to be slight differences between whiskies from different distilleries based on the water they use, the barrels they use, what fuel they use, and so on. This is one of the reasons why different regions can have identifiably different characteristics. So provenance is part of the difference. The other major difference is to do with ingredients, generally in the type of grain used for the mash. In some areas whisky is regulated such that you can only call it, for instance, "Scotch", if it meets those standards. However these generally tend to enforce a minimum quality (e.g. restrictions on the quantity of artificial additives), set of ingredients, and location.

"Whisk(e)y" is the generic term for all whiskies.
"Scotch" or "Scotch whisky" is from Scotland, and is made to a particular standard, using barley as the majority grain, aged for a minimum time, and so on.
Irish whiskey is basically made using the same method as Scotch, but in Ireland. It doesn't have to use barley but often does. It doesn't tend to use peat as heavily in the process, so they tend to be a little smoother than some Scotches (particularly Islay scotches).
Bourbon is American whiskey and uses corn as the majority grain.
Rye whiskey also tends to be American and (usually) uses rye as the grain.
Canadian whisky tends to have rye in it and may be marketed as rye whisky but doesn't always contain majority rye.
Tennessee whiskey is Bourbon made in Tennessee.

I don't know much about Canadian or Japanese whisky. I would imagine they are made to a similar standard as Scotch or Irish whiskey but there might be some differences (for instance, rye being more prominent in Canadian whisky). I've found Japanese whisky to generally be smoother and lighter than Scotch but that may just be those I've tried.

[Peelee]

If you're going to ruin scotch with coke, then just use anything you can find. generally speaking, people who drink whisky and Coke doesn't drink it for the taste. They drink it to get sloshed.


I'll second this. I really like whiskey or bourbon with coke, both for taste and intoxication (it can really cut the sharpness of some bourbon without taking away all the flavor), but the I find the flavor of Scotch to be such that it doesn't blend well.

A good scotch, in my opinion, is Dewar's (might have the spelling slightly off with the vowels). Not super expensive, not cheap, and good taste.
That said, I have tried Dewar's with Coke and it was... not terrible, but definitely tasted better straight.


I agree with that, but I'd even go so far as to say get the cheapest stuff you can tolerate and save your money.

Note to self: Don't joke around with Whiskey People.

[Beleriphon]

This is kinda a tangential question, but it might help qualify some of the advice here (at least for me if not most).

What is the difference (if any) between Scotch, Scotch whiskey, whiskey, bourbon, and <nation here: Canadian/Irish/etc> whiskey? (I'm ignoring whether or not the 'e' should be in whiskey in this list.)

Scotch and scotch whiskey are essentially the same thing, made with malted cereal grains. Bourbon is a whiskey made with corn mash as opposed to rye, or other grains. Canadian whiskey is has legal requirements relating to the production to be labeled as such within Canada, the US follows similar regulations. Outside of Canada unless you're dealing with imports from Canada results may vary.

Wikipedia has a pretty good run down about what the different names mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky

If you're in the US, especially along the border, you probably have a long and storied history with Canadian alcohol what with rumrunners during Prohibition.

[sktarq]

Also if you plan to drink whiskey at all regularly get a couple guest bottles. By which I mean that a whiskey worth savoring will generally start at $25-$30 (and that at large specialty stores with steep discounts) and watching your mates shoot the stuff will make your wallet groan. So a couple $12-25 are good for shots and mixed drinks.

As for what to actually sit down, spend money on, and savor (preferably with stones) is a question of style preference. I like peat fired whiskeys for example - but they are by no means for everyone. I really dislike sweeter ones. This will trump quality every time. In order to figure out what you like I recommend finding a higher end bar on a quiet night and trying a single of a couple things with a friendly and knowledgeable bartender. Or get an idea of a tasting list from a good liquor store and work through it at a bar. Always get singles so that you can try focusing on taste and spread out your tasting over several trips so that your palette stays fresh and undulled by alcohol in the later tastings.

Also over $75 (usually retail - definitely discount) and the law of diminishing returns really starts to take it's toll.

[Knaight]

If you're going to ruin scotch with coke, then just use anything you can find. generally speaking, people who drink whisky and Coke doesn't drink it for the taste. They drink it to get sloshed.

I wouldn't say that. In my experience people tend to like the taste of the mixture as a mixed drink. Said people almost certainly aren't whisky snobs and thus are fine with something cheap (although getting too cheap can go wrong even there - I'm not a rum snob, but that doesn't mean I plan on ever subjecting myself to Calypso again), but the mix is still there for the flavor more than just getting hammered. If you're just getting hammered why bother with the coke?

[scalyfreak]

I wouldn't say that. In my experience people tend to like the taste of the mixture as a mixed drink. Said people almost certainly aren't whisky snobs and thus are fine with something cheap

To a point. The quality and flavor of the alcohol used in a mixed drink impacts the flavor of the final product. Too low grade, and you end up with a tumbler full of something questionable that punishes your taste buds seemingly forever, as opposed to a shot that you can down quickly and chase down with something that drowns the after taste.

Martinis are better with Grey Goose.

[Knaight]

To a point. The quality and flavor of the alcohol used in a mixed drink impacts the flavor of the final product. Too low grade, and you end up with a tumbler full of something questionable that punishes your taste buds seemingly forever, as opposed to a shot that you can down quickly and chase down with something that drowns the after taste.

Martinis are better with Grey Goose.

Hence my caveat in the parenthetical - I'd have used a whisky example if I knew whisky brands better, but as I don't Calypso was the best fit.

[scalyfreak]

Evan Williams is horrible.

I have heard others voice the same feelings after sipping it, so I don't think it's just me being a whisky snob. There was something pervasive about the taste that made me think of nail polish remover and cheap mouth wash.

[Aedilred]

Martinis are better with Grey Goose.

But you don't put vodka in a martini...

[thorgrim29]

Never had the basic Evan Williams but the single barrel vintage is my second favourite bourbon (favourite is Corner Creek Reserve).

The diminishing return thing definately is true but since prices vary I'd say anything more expensive than a Lagavulin 16 you need to really love the distillerie. For example my favourite scotch is Talisker 57 North (why yes I am a sucker for cask strenght why do you ask?), it's a bit (or twice) over my usual price range but well it's worth it for me.

[Beleriphon]

But you don't put vodka in a martini...

Bond disagrees.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/49644233.jpg


Never had the basic Evan Williams but the single barrel vintage is my second favourite bourbon (favourite is Corner Creek Reserve).

The diminishing return thing definately is true but since prices vary I'd say anything more expensive than a Lagavulin 16 you need to really love the distillerie. For example my favourite scotch is Talisker 57 North (why yes I am a sucker for cask strenght why do you ask?), it's a bit (or twice) over my usual price range but well it's worth it for me.

I'm there with you. A solid quality whisky shouldn't cost you a month's rent, but spending the equivalent of a very nice dinner out isn't unreasonable to procure quality scotch, or any other whiskey really. For me a decent sized 750mL bottle is $40 to $50 if it's local and something I plan on drinking as a normal part of my week. I'll got $150 for something special though.

[Feytalist]

Bond disagrees.

No... he specifically orders a vodka martini. Different thing. It's even in the pic you posted.

[thorgrim29]

At this point would bartenders assume vodka martini? In the Connery Bond days the default was gin martini but I think it might have shifted to the point that if you want a gin martini you should specify it.

[Feytalist]

Not in my local cocktail bar, anyway. It's always been gin and vermouth.

Though the vodka martini is also on the menu. Under the name... vodka martini.

[tomandtish]

At this point would bartenders assume vodka martini? In the Connery Bond days the default was gin martini but I think it might have shifted to the point that if you want a gin martini you should specify it.

Depends. Look at the bar menu. If it has a lot of flavored martinis, they are probably vodka even if it doesn't specifically say so, because 1) there's a lot more flavored vodkas out there and 2) it's a lot easier to create a specific flavor using vodka because it's more neutral to begin with.

But yeah, a default martini should always be gin.

[scalyfreak]

But you don't put vodka in a martini...

Sure you do, if that's the kind of martini you're making. Others have already pointed out James Bond and the vodka martini. Both concepts have been around long enough that if I walk up to a bar and order a martini without specifying, I expect to be asked. If I was on the other side of the counter, I most certainly would ask, rather than assume that the client wants gin just because he or she didn't specifically request vodka.

Any martini other than the basic (gin + vermouth) tends to be vodka anyway, since gin flavor in a blueberry or lemon drop would be weird.


Never had the basic Evan Williams but the single barrel vintage is my second favourite bourbon (favourite is Corner Creek Reserve).

Keep it that way. :smalltongue:

EDIT:
I missed tomandish's comment about flavored and default martinis, but it reminded me of something I'd forgotten from my part time job in a bar near college campus, back when I took classes on that same campus: College students who grew up with James Bond and no other exposure mixed drinks/cocktails, think a proper martini is made with vodka and vermouth. Gin has a unique flavor, and someone who doesn't like it, can occasionally become very upset with the person behind the bar if the drink tastes of gin instead of vodka...

[Aedilred]

I do know of the existence of vodka martinis. There are some who would claim, however, that since a martini is by definition gin and vermouth, so a vodka martini isn't actually a martini at all. In any case, vodka martinis should always be specified as such.



I missed tomandish's comment about flavored and default martinis, but it reminded me of something I'd forgotten from my part time job in a bar near college campus, back when I took classes on that same campus: College students who grew up with James Bond and no other exposure mixed drinks/cocktails, think a proper martini is made with vodka and vermouth. Gin has a unique flavor, and someone who doesn't like it, can occasionally become very upset with the person behind the bar if the drink tastes of gin instead of vodka...
World's gone to the dogs, etc.

As it happens, I don't particularly care for martinis no matter what's in them. Vermouth doesn't do anything for me. But standards have to be maintained.

[Knaight]

I missed tomandish's comment about flavored and default martinis, but it reminded me of something I'd forgotten from my part time job in a bar near college campus, back when I took classes on that same campus: College students who grew up with James Bond and no other exposure mixed drinks/cocktails, think a proper martini is made with vodka and vermouth. Gin has a unique flavor, and someone who doesn't like it, can occasionally become very upset with the person behind the bar if the drink tastes of gin instead of vodka...

Gin is pretty strong stuff, it's not something I'd recommend dropping on someone without a heads up if they're just expecting some sort of clear liquor. This rule also applies to Ouzo, to an even greater extent.

[Winter_Wolf]

Note to self: Don't joke around with Whiskey People.

I've been promoted to "whisky person"? Hot diggity! Actually I'm not big into whisky, but a good general rule of thumb is that if you're going to mix liquor with anything, you don't want to use the expensive stuff. Nothing higher than mid range prices, and like I said, as long as you can tolerate the taste, using the cheapest stuff you can get is fine for most mixed drinks. Someone regaled me with a tale of trying to mix a "three wise men" using Cuervo and a couple other bottom shelf names. It...didn't work out so well for them. They were improvising with what they had, and what they had was meant for college drunk-fests.

Man I feel like I could go for two fingers of whisky right about now. Actually been thinking about it for days and then the thread popped up. Could it be a sign? (I doubt it, but interesting coincidence for me.)

[sktarq]

*sits down for a Hendrick's Martini, Stirred-not-Shaken, a nice vermouth and plenty of it (needs to bloom the floral notes but not dominate), and a twist, in a bucket*

Too warm for whiskey.

[Jay R]

A sword is made of metal. A wooden sword is made of wood.
A coffee is hot. An iced coffee is cold.
A bear is made of meat, bone, and hair. A teddy bear is made of cloth and fluff.
A martini is made with gin and vermouth. A vodka martini is made with vodka and vermouth.

[Peelee]

I've been promoted to "whisky person"? Hot diggity!

Nope. Whiskey Person. That was intentional, because I just can't help myself.

[Winter_Wolf]

Nope. Whiskey Person. That was intentional, because I just can't help myself.
I stand by my "hot diggity". :biggrin:

[Domino Quartz]

Thank you for your recommendations, everybody who gave them! I now have an idea of the sort of qualities I need to look for in Scotch Whisky.

[Xuc Xac]

Here are a few more points of interest to add to the thread:

Countries: There are five countries that produce good whisky and a lot that make cheap knock-off stuff for people who have seen whiskey in movies but don't know what it should really taste like. The 5 countries are Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States, and Japan. They all have their own distinct character and style except Japan. Japan got into whisky when a sake brewer went to study in Scotland, married a Scot, and learned whisky distilling, then went back to Japan to make whisky. Instead of trying to make their own style (like they've done with beer), the Japanese distillers hold themselves to a strict Scotch standard. If it isn't just like Scottish whisky, then they think it's wrong. Japanese whisky is good, but don't get it with the expectation of experiencing something different.

Grey Goose vodka: Not fancy or particularly good. It used to be much cheaper, but sales were poor. They tripled the price to get the bottles moved to the top shelf and people started buying it because they thought it must be good at that price. It has good name recognition but in a blind taste test, it doesn't really stand out as a top-rate vodka. It's not bad, but vodka is pretty simple. It doesn't take much quality control to get passable vodka. Cheap vodka is generally worse than cheap versions of other liquors though, because the other liquors are cheap vodka with additives that cover some of the mistakes of the cheap vodka.

James Bond's martini: When Bond was originally written, cocktails were a serious thing that people were familiar with. Everyone knew that a martini was gin and vermouth gently stirred with ice in a pitcher and then poured through a strainer into a cocktail glass. Nowadays, most people only know martinis through Bond and he's so cool that they assume he's being so specific because he's a real connoisseur and wants his drink done properly. So people think that's how a martini should be done. It's become the default in a lot of places and you have to tell the bartender not to do it that way. Bond's drink wasn't even a vodka martini. It was a martini (i.e. gin and vermouth) with some vodka added. The recipe was three parts gin (Gordon's), 1 part vodka, and 1/2 part of vermouth, shaken until ice cold, served in a goblet, and garnished with a lemon peel.

[Aedilred]

Here are a few more points of interest to add to the thread:

Countries: There are five countries that produce good whisky and a lot that make cheap knock-off stuff for people who have seen whiskey in movies but don't know what it should really taste like. The 5 countries are Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States, and Japan. They all have their own distinct character and style except Japan. Japan got into whisky when a sake brewer went to study in Scotland, married a Scot, and learned whisky distilling, then went back to Japan to make whisky. Instead of trying to make their own style (like they've done with beer), the Japanese distillers hold themselves to a strict Scotch standard. If it isn't just like Scottish whisky, then they think it's wrong. Japanese whisky is good, but don't get it with the expectation of experiencing something different.
Broadly speaking I agree but there are one or two decent distilleries outside those countries. In the last few years, distilleries have opened in England and produce decent whisky, for instance, and I think there are a couple in Australia too.


James Bond's martini: When Bond was originally written, cocktails were a serious thing that people were familiar with. Everyone knew that a martini was gin and vermouth gently stirred with ice in a pitcher and then poured through a strainer into a cocktail glass. Nowadays, most people only know martinis through Bond and he's so cool that they assume he's being so specific because he's a real connoisseur and wants his drink done properly. So people think that's how a martini should be done. It's become the default in a lot of places and you have to tell the bartender not to do it that way. Bond's drink wasn't even a vodka martini. It was a martini (i.e. gin and vermouth) with some vodka added. The recipe was three parts gin (Gordon's), 1 part vodka, and 1/2 part of vermouth, shaken until ice cold, served in a goblet, and garnished with a lemon peel.
That's the Vesper, but I think he only drinks that in Casino Royale (and, in the films, Quantum of Solace). The vodka martini is a film thing, as he has that in almost every film.

As people are fond of pointing out, you shouldn't shake a martini, so Bond's insistence on "shaken, not stirred" marks him out as something of a savage. Having said that, and having tried a few varieties while experimenting with cocktails, I do actually prefer the shaken variety (it has a markedly different texture to a stirred one). But I don't really like martinis anyway, as above.

[Jay R]

As people are fond of pointing out, you shouldn't shake a martini, so Bond's insistence on "shaken, not stirred" marks him out as something of a savage. Having said that, and having tried a few varieties while experimenting with cocktails, I do actually prefer the shaken variety (it has a markedly different texture to a stirred one). But I don't really like martinis anyway, as above.

Actually, you shouldn't shake a true martini. It's bad for the juniper flavor in the gin. But I'm told that you should not stir vodka from the 1950s or so, because stirring it makes it look cloudy. [It no longer matters, by the way.] Obviously, I cannot test this.

All it shows is that a book and movie series started in the 1950s made assumptions based on the 1950s.


Having said that, and having tried a few varieties while experimenting with cocktails, I do actually prefer the shaken variety (it has a markedly different texture to a stirred one). But I don't really like martinis anyway, as above.

Yup. The final arbiter is taste.

[Gnomvid]

I'm simplifying a LOT here but Islay (pronounced ayla) scotch is very smoky because the barley is cooked over peat smoke,.

It's a bit late I know but this is just a myth, how the barley was dried by air or by more or less roasting it, has no bearing on the final product, it is only done so that it can be milled, remember the end product before hitting the barrel is distilled alcohol.
Now the source of the Islay whisky's smokyness is that the barrels are charred (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdyujSXEXo), that is to say the inside of the barrels are set on fire before being topped up with pure alcohol, the reason the end product is only about 37,5% is the years of storing a significant amount of alcohol will simply evaporate called (the angels share).

[veti]

Thank you for your recommendations, everybody who gave them! I now have an idea of the sort of qualities I need to look for in Scotch Whisky.

If you have taken away any recommendation other than "try them yourself", then we have done you a disservice.

Scotch whisky covers a wide range. My go-to tipple is Glenmorangie, which has a very soft, clean flavour. Islay and Talisker have a smoky tinge. Some islands (Jura comes to mind) have a more earthy, peaty taste, and in my mind are more closely related to Irish whiskey than to other varieties of Scotch. (I know someone is going to vigorously disagree with that statement, so let me say right now I'll make no attempt to defend it.) Then there's the more complex fruity tastes, like Glenlivet and Glenfiddich.

As a final note, there's a lot of snobbery around "single malt". Truth be told, there's nothing magical about single malt - it's just the most profitable for the distillery (because no sharing), and hence that's where they put the most care and effort. But for variety's sake, you really should also try the commoner blends, like Chivas Regal or Johnnie Walker. You might actually prefer them to some of those single malts - and if so, you could save a lot of money that way...

Trial and error, that's the ticket. You've got a lot of exploring to do, so have fun.

But whatever you do, don't put ice in it. Ice has a place in whiskey, and that place is called Bourbon. Ice in Scotch is an abomination.

[Heliomance]

Here are a few more points of interest to add to the thread:

Countries: There are five countries that produce good whisky and a lot that make cheap knock-off stuff for people who have seen whiskey in movies but don't know what it should really taste like. The 5 countries are Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States, and Japan. They all have their own distinct character and style except Japan. Japan got into whisky when a sake brewer went to study in Scotland, married a Scot, and learned whisky distilling, then went back to Japan to make whisky. Instead of trying to make their own style (like they've done with beer), the Japanese distillers hold themselves to a strict Scotch standard. If it isn't just like Scottish whisky, then they think it's wrong. Japanese whisky is good, but don't get it with the expectation of experiencing something different.

Grey Goose vodka: Not fancy or particularly good. It used to be much cheaper, but sales were poor. They tripled the price to get the bottles moved to the top shelf and people started buying it because they thought it must be good at that price. It has good name recognition but in a blind taste test, it doesn't really stand out as a top-rate vodka. It's not bad, but vodka is pretty simple. It doesn't take much quality control to get passable vodka. Cheap vodka is generally worse than cheap versions of other liquors though, because the other liquors are cheap vodka with additives that cover some of the mistakes of the cheap vodka.

James Bond's martini: When Bond was originally written, cocktails were a serious thing that people were familiar with. Everyone knew that a martini was gin and vermouth gently stirred with ice in a pitcher and then poured through a strainer into a cocktail glass. Nowadays, most people only know martinis through Bond and he's so cool that they assume he's being so specific because he's a real connoisseur and wants his drink done properly. So people think that's how a martini should be done. It's become the default in a lot of places and you have to tell the bartender not to do it that way. Bond's drink wasn't even a vodka martini. It was a martini (i.e. gin and vermouth) with some vodka added. The recipe was three parts gin (Gordon's), 1 part vodka, and 1/2 part of vermouth, shaken until ice cold, served in a goblet, and garnished with a lemon peel.

Actually, in the books, he ordered it "stirred not shaken" - the supposed rationale (I have no source on this, so take with a pinch of salt) being that at the end of a long day, a calm and collected elite agent like Bond might be stirred, but he wouldn't be shaken. Apparently the movies reversed it because "shaken not stirred" sounds better.

[Razade]

Actually, in the books, he ordered it "stirred not shaken" - the supposed rationale (I have no source on this, so take with a pinch of salt) being that at the end of a long day, a calm and collected elite agent like Bond might be stirred, but he wouldn't be shaken. Apparently the movies reversed it because "shaken not stirred" sounds better.

That's not true. Neither the order in which he says it or that it's to calm him since he never seems to order it when he needs to be calm. More on that below.

Here's the first instance of Shaken, not Stirred from the books. Casino Royale to be exact. Chapter 7.


'A dry martini,' he said. 'One. In a deep champagne goblet.'
'Oui, monsieur.'
'Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?'
'Certainly monsieur.' The barman seemed pleased with the idea.
'Gosh, that's certainly a drink,' said Leiter.
Bond laughed. 'When I'm ... er ... concentrating,' he explained, 'I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong and very cold, and very well made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad. This drink's my own invention. I'm going to patent it when I think of a good name.'

He does it again in Dr. No where he says


"a medium Vodka dry Martini – with a slice of lemon peel. Shaken and not stirred please. I would prefer Russian or Polish vodka."

There's actually several reasons for this. He orders the same drink in Live and Let Die as well. Shaken. Not stirred.

1. A shaken drink with ice makes the ice melt faster and thus dilutes the alcohol content. Thus making it look like Bond is drinking a stronger drink than he actually is. Which would be good for a spy.

2. Cold drinks numb the tongue and thus inhibit your taste buds. This could help cover up the taste of cheap vodka.

3. Cheap vodkas (especially potato) have an oily consistency. By shaking the drink you'll more or less emulsify the beverage and thus the oily texture of cheap vodkas can be covered up. As pointed out in the above Dr. No quote, Bond is a fan of Vodka from Russia or Poland. Both of whom make predominantly...potato vodka.

[Heliomance]

That's not true. Neither the order in which he says it or that it's to calm him since he never seems to order it when he needs to be calm. More on that below.

Here's the first instance of Shaken, not Stirred from the books. Casino Royale to be exact. Chapter 7.



He does it again in Dr. No where he says



There's actually several reasons for this. He orders the same drink in Live and Let Die as well. Shaken. Not stirred.

1. A shaken drink with ice makes the ice melt faster and thus dilutes the alcohol content. Thus making it look like Bond is drinking a stronger drink than he actually is. Which would be good for a spy.

2. Cold drinks numb the tongue and thus inhibit your taste buds. This could help cover up the taste of cheap vodka.

3. Cheap vodkas (especially potato) have an oily consistency. By shaking the drink you'll more or less emulsify the beverage and thus the oily texture of cheap vodkas can be covered up. As pointed out in the above Dr. No quote, Bond is a fan of Vodka from Russia or Poland. Both of whom make predominantly...potato vodka.
I stand corrected. Wish I could remember where I heard that tale about the movies reversing it.

[Aedilred]

There's actually several reasons for this. He orders the same drink in Live and Let Die as well. Shaken. Not stirred.

1. A shaken drink with ice makes the ice melt faster and thus dilutes the alcohol content. Thus making it look like Bond is drinking a stronger drink than he actually is. Which would be good for a spy.

2. Cold drinks numb the tongue and thus inhibit your taste buds. This could help cover up the taste of cheap vodka.

3. Cheap vodkas (especially potato) have an oily consistency. By shaking the drink you'll more or less emulsify the beverage and thus the oily texture of cheap vodkas can be covered up. As pointed out in the above Dr. No quote, Bond is a fan of Vodka from Russia or Poland. Both of whom make predominantly...potato vodka.
Also, shaking the drink is a faster method of preparation. I've seen it suggested that Bond's insistence on shaking is because he's impatient and wants his drink more quickly.

[Spacewolf]

I stand corrected. Wish I could remember where I heard that tale about the movies reversing it.

He drinks a Stirred one first in Royal and get poisoned from it.

Ian Fleming is also on record saying the Stirred vs Shaken only matters if the bartender is female. (For obvious reasons)

[tomandtish]

mYup. The final arbiter is taste.

This is the best advice to follow. Whether it's food or alcohol, the best one is the one that you like the most. It's completely pointless paying $150 for a bottle of scotch if you don't like it as much as the $40 bottle.

As others have said, find a good whiskey bar and experiment.

[thorgrim29]

It's a bit late I know but this is just a myth, how the barley was dried by air or by more or less roasting it, has no bearing on the final product, it is only done so that it can be milled, remember the end product before hitting the barrel is distilled alcohol.
Now the source of the Islay whisky's smokyness is that the barrels are charred (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdyujSXEXo), that is to say the inside of the barrels are set on fire before being topped up with pure alcohol, the reason the end product is only about 37,5% is the years of storing a significant amount of alcohol will simply evaporate called (the angels share).

I'm going to need several sources on that since it contradicts documentaries I've watched, books I've read, experts I've talked to, etc etc.

[Razade]

Also, shaking the drink is a faster method of preparation. I've seen it suggested that Bond's insistence on shaking is because he's impatient and wants his drink more quickly.

Considering how much he drinks in the books, that's probably not too far from the truth. Dude was a seriously high functioning alcoholic.

[valadil]

Personally I go with bourbon because I'm cheap. Any $30 bourbon makes me happy. Scotch doesn't work til $40 or $50. I don't like any bourbon as much as Laphroaig, but that stuff's way out of my range these days.

[Gnomvid]

I'm going to need several sources on that since it contradicts documentaries I've watched, books I've read, experts I've talked to, etc etc.

Yes the interweb is not very friendly in this regard but then it may be part trade secret as well, but let me riddle you this? what do you think the process of distillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation) does?
Essentially whisky and indeed all grain spirits start out as beer basically, before being distilled and then whether it becomes a vodka, Whisky, or something else depends entirely on how it is processed after the distillation process, this is pretty basic chemistry.

There's no way for any of the smokyness from roasting the barley over a peat fire (it is on the other hand infiniutley quicker than air drying) to make it through the distilling process the only end result is pure alcohol with a minuscule amount of water in it, so unless you then add the solids from the distillation pan to the barrel together with the Alcohol (which by the way would probably make it quite un-pallatable) where could the smokiness possibly come from? pure alcohol is not smoky or colored in any way, nor is unburnt wood.
Answer the charred wood of the barrel which incidentally makes smoky whisky darker than non smoky whisky, even if the barley was roasted over a peat fire but the alcohol not put in a charred barrel, which is also why the whisky's that spent some time maturing in sherry casks tend to be slightly rose tinted depending on the length of time it spent in a sherry cask.

The reason they say the smokiness/peatyness is how the grain is dried before milling is to make that specific product seem better/more refined/stand out etc.

[Spacewolf]

Yes the interweb is not very friendly in this regard but then it may be part trade secret as well, but let me riddle you this? what do you think the process of distillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation) does?
Essentially whisky and indeed all grain spirits start out as beer basically, before being distilled and then whether it becomes a vodka, Whisky, or something else depends entirely on how it is processed after the distillation process, this is pretty basic chemistry.

There's no way for any of the smokyness from roasting the barley over a peat fire (it is on the other hand infiniutley quicker than air drying) to make it through the distilling process the only end result is pure alcohol with a minuscule amount of water in it, so unless you then add the solids from the distillation pan to the barrel together with the Alcohol (which by the way would probably make it quite un-pallatable) where could the smokiness possibly come from? pure alcohol is not smoky or colored in any way, nor is unburnt wood.
Answer the charred wood of the barrel which incidentally makes smoky whisky darker than non smoky whisky, even if the barley was roasted over a peat fire but the alcohol not put in a charred barrel, which is also why the whisky's that spent some time maturing in sherry casks tend to be slightly rose tinted depending on the length of time it spent in a sherry cask.

The reason they say the smokiness/peatyness is how the grain is dried before milling is to make that specific product seem better/more refined/stand out etc.

No distiller in the world distils to 100% alcohol it's completely pointless, hell in extremely dry climates the angels share strengthens the drink as the water evaporates more readily than the Alcohol so it's not "Pure Alcohol with alittle water". Bourbon Barrels are also charred and considering most Scotch is brewed in old bourbon barrels there is obviously more to the taste than it just being the barrel.

Edit: You also have to remember Whiskey distillers arn't trying to distil flavourless Alcohol they deliberately allow carry over (Tails which can be both good and bad as they are what gives the flavour but can also contain alot of other stuff so deciding on where the cut is is an important procedure.)

[thorgrim29]

Yes the interweb is not very friendly in this regard but then it may be part trade secret as well, but let me riddle you this? what do you think the process of distillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation) does?
Essentially whisky and indeed all grain spirits start out as beer basically, before being distilled and then whether it becomes a vodka, Whisky, or something else depends entirely on how it is processed after the distillation process, this is pretty basic chemistry.

There's no way for any of the smokyness from roasting the barley over a peat fire (it is on the other hand infiniutley quicker than air drying) to make it through the distilling process the only end result is pure alcohol with a minuscule amount of water in it, so unless you then add the solids from the distillation pan to the barrel together with the Alcohol (which by the way would probably make it quite un-pallatable) where could the smokiness possibly come from? pure alcohol is not smoky or colored in any way, nor is unburnt wood.
Answer the charred wood of the barrel which incidentally makes smoky whisky darker than non smoky whisky, even if the barley was roasted over a peat fire but the alcohol not put in a charred barrel, which is also why the whisky's that spent some time maturing in sherry casks tend to be slightly rose tinted depending on the length of time it spent in a sherry cask.

The reason they say the smokiness/peatyness is how the grain is dried before milling is to make that specific product seem better/more refined/stand out etc.

Not a chemist here but from what I know you would be right if we were talking about continuous distillation. However we are not, new make is distilled to around 70% ABV and a lot of the characteristics of the mash end up in the end product. If they didn't then grain choice or any other variable before the distillation would have no impact on the product yet corn, barley or rye whiskies are very distinctive. Specifically the smoky taste comes mainly from phenols and apparently roughly a third of the phenol present in the mash will end up in the distillate. Also charred wood does release some phenols which is why even products that are dried with electric or natural gas heaters have a hint of it but not nearly as much as the distilleries or particular expressions that use peat heavily. Example: The Bruichladdich Octomore is one of or the (depending on the year) single malt with the highest phenol concentration. They call it their super heavily peated expression, while Bruichladdich is not usually known for smoky products. Around 2 years ago a rep from the distillery came to a whiskey club I used to belong to and explained how they achieve this by drying the mash over peat fires, then soaking it again then re-drying it again and again until they get the concentrations they want. I understand that this is the kind of product where the appeal to tradition is strong and easily used to boost prices but this is above and beyond.

Besides, it comes down to do you think there is a vast conspiracy involving distillers, experts and scientists to make people think peat has an influence on the phenols in the end product? Because literally every source I can find from articles to company websites to even a few scientific papers (here is one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1968.tb03126.x/full#abstract) mention it whereas this thread is the first time I've heard it contested in the 5 or so years since I've started drinking scotch.

[Knaight]

Yes the interweb is not very friendly in this regard but then it may be part trade secret as well, but let me riddle you this? what do you think the process of distillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation) does?
Essentially whisky and indeed all grain spirits start out as beer basically, before being distilled and then whether it becomes a vodka, Whisky, or something else depends entirely on how it is processed after the distillation process, this is pretty basic chemistry.

This has all sorts of problems. For one thing, distillation fundamentally works in terms of altering mass fractions - you have a mix of stuff in the liquid phase, you heat it at the distillation temperature, and you get a mix of the same stuff in gas phase. Things with higher boiling points end up over represented in the liquid phase, and things with lower boiling points end up over represented in the gas phase. For fractional distillation (which can be reasonably assumed here), the gas phase is then cooled to a liquid elsewhere, and then that liquid is distilled; repetition of this process further drives the differences in mass fraction between the distillate and the starting material. How many times this distillation happens varies, with chemical and petroleum industries frequently using massive distillation columns designed to do over ten distillations and get fairly pure products at the end. The production of drinking alcohol generally doesn't distill nearly that far - cranking ethanol mass fraction from about 0.1 to 0.8* is pretty common; essentially nobody bothers approaching the 0.98 azeotrope limit (which is still far from pure alcohol with a little bit of water, getting beyond that limit needs a different separation process entirely). With that little distillation, there's still plenty of room for other compounds to enter the distillate. The phenols in question generally have a higher boiling point than water, but they also provide flavor while in fairly trace quantities.

Take a look at some vapor pressure curves - well below actual boiling points there's still a significant amount of vapor pressure for most liquids. The thermodynamics of distillation basically come down to the vapor pressure of a substance equalizing the partial pressure of that substance in the gas phase, where the amount in the gas phase is a function of temperature and the amount in the liquid phase. Unless the vapor pressure is negligible, something gets into the gas phase. Iteration of distillation (fractional distillation) can produce higher purity as discussed above, but given the amount of distillation that goes into alcohols the idea that it removes without a meaningful trace left substances of things with boiling points in the 100-250 C range that aren't even that highly water soluble to begin with is laughable.

*These are very rough numbers, given the variation between alcohols. Whisky rarely goes above 0.7, and there are exceptions that punch through the 0.8, particularly less flavorful alcohols.

[Xuc Xac]

How many times this distillation happens varies, with chemical and petroleum industries frequently using massive distillation columns designed to do over ten distillations and get fairly pure products at the end. The production of drinking alcohol generally doesn't distill nearly that far - cranking ethanol mass fraction from about 0.1 to 0.8* is pretty common; essentially nobody bothers approaching the 0.98 azeotrope limit (which is still far from pure alcohol with a little bit of water, getting beyond that limit needs a different separation process entirely).

Liquor is generally distilled a handful of times. The iconic image of a brown jug of moonshine marked with XXX or XXXX was a real thing. They collected the distillate in a jug and marked it with an X. Then they ran it through the still again and refilled the jug and marked it with another X. After three or four, it was effectively done. Four distillations is all it takes to get up around 190 proof.

If you're making whisky or bourbon instead of moonshine, you put it in the barrel to age and soak up some charred wood flavor. Some of the liquor is lost to the angel's share (evaporation through the porous barrel) and the devil's cut (absorption into the wood), but not nearly enough to drop the proof from 190 down to 80 (typical bottle strength). They water it down for consumption because extremely high proof alcohol isn't really drinkable.

[Razade]

Yes the interweb is not very friendly in this regard but then it may be part trade secret as well, but let me riddle you this? what do you think the process of distillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation) does?

The reason that the internet isn't friendly for what you're saying...and all of this...


Essentially whisky and indeed all grain spirits start out as beer basically, before being distilled and then whether it becomes a vodka, Whisky, or something else depends entirely on how it is processed after the distillation process, this is pretty basic chemistry.

There's no way for any of the smokyness from roasting the barley over a peat fire (it is on the other hand infiniutley quicker than air drying) to make it through the distilling process the only end result is pure alcohol with a minuscule amount of water in it, so unless you then add the solids from the distillation pan to the barrel together with the Alcohol (which by the way would probably make it quite un-pallatable) where could the smokiness possibly come from? pure alcohol is not smoky or colored in any way, nor is unburnt wood.
Answer the charred wood of the barrel which incidentally makes smoky whisky darker than non smoky whisky, even if the barley was roasted over a peat fire but the alcohol not put in a charred barrel, which is also why the whisky's that spent some time maturing in sherry casks tend to be slightly rose tinted depending on the length of time it spent in a sherry cask.

The reason they say the smokiness/peatyness is how the grain is dried before milling is to make that specific product seem better/more refined/stand out etc.

is it's distilled pap.

Since you didn't bother to cite any actual sources. Here's a quick video describing the process (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmgqXcWzd8).

[Mr Blobby]

One little point not raised: shipping costs and taxes

American Whiskey:
Distance travelled to me: 4,000 miles
Import Tax: 17.5%
VAT: 76%

Domestic Scotch:
Distance travelled to me: 450 miles.
Import Tax: 0%
VAT: 76%

Simple conclusion: in a head-to-head between the two of the same price [from my local shop in the UK], Scotch will usually win simply due to being higher quality [as more of the price would be going on the innards of bottle, and not a taxman or moving said bottle around].

[Hagashager]

As indicated by the title of this thread, I am interested in price vs. quality regarding Scotch Whisky. Specifically, how much per bottle a reasonably good quality whisky would cost. Some time ago, I tasted some whisky, and found that I quite liked the taste. How much would a reasonably good quality bottle cost, and what indications of quality would I need to look for? Thanks in advance.

Question: When you say "Scotch Whisky" do you mean actual Scotch or are you using as a general term for Whisky?
I ask because Scotch is a type of Whisky, of which there are many, but I know some people use Whisky and Scotch interchangeably.

In any case, My favorite Bourbon is Jefferson's Private Reserve. It's quite good, and at around $40 is fairly economic too. Woodford's is another good Bourbon.

My favorite Scotch right now is Laphroaig 16 year. It's not quite cheap, but still under $80.

Another route I would highly suggest is Japanese Whisky. They are very similar to Scotches in taste, but have a more subtle flavor. My favorite so far is Kofee, which, like Jefferson's, is around $40, and pretty good.

[scalyfreak]

Making a feeble attempt to bring this back full circle:

One of the employees at my local liquor store is a genuine whiskey (and whisky!) enthusiast. We've had several good conversations on the topics of bourbon, scotch, Irish whiskey, et cetera over the years. The other day when I stopped by she suggested a couple small sample bottles of a new Canadian whiskey - new to this store anyway.

I now have a new Canadian favorite: Forty Creek Barrel Select. Tastes like a smoother and deeper version of Pendleton Black.

[oudeis]

If you live in the United States, you start getting into the good stuff at around $35. These will be 10- and 12-year single malts and higher-end blends such as Johnny Walker Black (the Double Black is about $5 more and is well worth it: smoky, salty, and very distinctive). I would stay away from the Glenfiddich 12, though, because it's just awful. The 15-year is supposed to be first-rate but it's about $20 more. $50 is where you start getting into the 15-years and the more niche/artisanal labels like Laphroaig. It's also where you find American micro-distilled products such as McCarthy's out of Oregon and Westland out of Seattle. If your local stores stock these recommend both of them most highly. I also have to throw in a recommendation for Stranahan's out of Denver, which while not a Scotch is one of the finest spirits you will ever taste.

Trader Joe's has some decent house brand Scotches for very reasonable prices. The highland and lowland 8-years cost about $20 and are drinkable but nothing more, the 12-years are about $35 and are good but aren't particularly memorable, and I haven't tried the 16-years, which are about $50. They also have a quasi-private label called Finlaggan, which costs less than $25 and is really quite good on it's own merits and an exceptional deal once you factor in the price. Very nice peat flavor.

And make some room for me in the Gnomvid dogpile. I don't know whence came those vile heresies but such slander will not be tolerated while I'm on watch.

[kyoryu]

Blended isn't necessarily bad. With single-malt whiskeys of any sort, you get what comes out of a single barrel, good or bad.

Good blended whiskeys aim for a particular flavor profile, and will use multiple batches to achieve that profile. So a *good* blended whiskey should be more consistent from bottle to bottle, and can be quite excellent.

Now, if you wanna talk bourbon, everyone should get a bottle of Booker's at least once.

[thorgrim29]

Blended isn't necessarily bad. With single-malt whiskeys of any sort, you get what comes out of a single barrel, good or bad.

That's true in the case of a single barrel expressions but that is fairly rare since not all barrels are created equal. Actually the age statement on a bottle is the age of the youngest spirit included, but typically distilleries have a huge back catalog of barrels and the master blender is in charge of quality control. So if they are looking to bottle a 10 year old they will take the actual 10 year old spirit (as much as they can get away with because of cost) and add in older stuff until they have an end product that is consistent with the standard they have set. That's why typically when there is a year attached to a bottle (such as the Bowmore Tempest or the Octomore) it will vary from year to year depending on how they feel and what they have handy but when you buy say a Lagavulin 16 today you shouldn't be able to tell the difference with one you bought 10 years ago (as long as you open them on the same day obviously). It's a single malt because it's 100% spirits from the same distillery. A blend will incorporate many different distilleries and some raw alcohol in the case of blended whiskey (if it's labeled blended malt there will be no raw alcohol). But as some people have mentioned they can be quite good. Johnny Walker Red and the other more popular ones are garbage but I always have a bottle of Té Beagh or Cutty Sark Prohibition handy for when I'm making drinks (usually a Godfather, 2 parts scotch, one part Amaretto, shake with ice and serve on the rocks with a bit of lemon peel if you're feeling fancy) or I just don't feel like drinking the good stuff.

[pendell]

Here are a few more points of interest to add to the thread:

Countries: There are five countries that produce good whisky and a lot that make cheap knock-off stuff for people who have seen whiskey in movies but don't know what it should really taste like.

Apropos of that, I know nothing of whisky but speaking of "cheap knock-off stuff" reminds me of this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QNBypC9vs) from the movie Mr. Roberts, in which South Pacific medicinal alcohol is disguised as Red Label for a date. I suspect real whisky drinkers, with or without the superfluous 'e', will find it more hysterical than I do :smallamused:


Medicinal Alcohol + coke for color + hair tonic + iodine = Red Label.


Respectfully,

Brian P.