Food & Drink The Whisk(e)y Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Could skip the spelling issue and go for Scotch or Bourbon. Unless whatever you're drinking is from neither Scotland nor Kentucky, of course.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm more of a malt man, but I did have some ripper corn numbers in the US.

Hudson Distillery in upstate New York makes some beautiful, and I mean really beautiful, bourbons.
 
jmoo1 said:
So recently I decided that I have reached the age where I should start getting properly into whiskey.

I also recently listened to a Tim Ferriss podcast with Richard Betts (The Tattooed Heretic of Wine and Whiskey) which was awesome. (http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/10/05/richard-betts/)

As an aside - I have scrolled through this thread and I don't think it has been addressed but in the podcast he clarifies whiskey (with an E) Vs whisky (with no E). He says, if the country producing it has an E in its name it is called Whiskey (e.g. IrEland, England, UnitEd States, MozambiquE) if there is no E in the country that produces it, then it is called whisky (Scotland, Australia, Canada, Swaziland).

I was also recently overseas and so got duty free booze. I was in a hurry and wanted to spend exactly my remaining Euros, and had to get Hendricks Gin as a first priority so I got Johnnie Walker Double Black as it was the right price and I recognised the name.

Now, JW double black is tasty, I'm drinking it straight, largely because I don't typically have ice trays happening. It is described as "smoky" on the box, apparently as a result of using charred barrels, which Doss I believe is a massive positive, but it is also blended which I think puts it more in the peasant pile.

I started writing this post with the intent to ask some questions, but now I am not sure what they were. Discuss?
Click to expand...



Welcome aboard.

Never heard the spelling explanation before. I always just assumed that the spelling reflected differences in language/dialect between the Irish and Scots or that they wanted/needed to differentiate and that other countries followed suit because of whether their distillers came from.

Smoke/peat flavour should not come from the charring of the barrels as much as it comes from the toasting of barley during the malting process. Not sure exactly how it's done now but peat was burned as a fuel source to roast the barley (I suspect that "peated" whisky is one of humanity's happiest accidents). The peat/smokey flavour is infused into the malt because the barley is effectively smoked in the burning peat. I doubt that too much has changed.

Charred barrels are a feature of American whiskey (i.e. bourbon and rye) which, as I understand it, have become more prominent in Scottish whisky because America has huge reserves of oak barrels (that are more scarce in Europe). Reason I mention this is because bourbon and rye are whiskeys that are not really known as "smokey" (though there are a few bourbons I've tried such as Woodfords Reserve Double Oak that practically get there). I think the effect of charring a barrel is more about sweetness and the flavour of the wood (think of the way slightly burned roasted pumpkin is almost like caramel) itself than smoke.

If you've been taken by peated whisky, my recommendation is to look out for Talisker's 10 year old. I've picked it up for $60 a bottle at this time of year a few times (that seems to be the price when it goes on special). That is roughly the prices of what you would pay for double black but I think it is an infinitely better whisky (more flavour, fuller body, smoother, everything). It occupies a nice space between malt and peat.

Ardbeg is probably the most well know of the distilleries (from Islay) which produce peated whiskys and they tend to have the smokiest whiskys. Their 10 year old is also outstanding but would be more confronting than Talisker (and much more so than the double black). A mate told me that it is currently on special at Dans for about $70.

For something Irish and not peated (or at least not smokey) Teelings Small Batch was being sold at Dan Murphy's for $45 a bottle the last time I checked. I don't think that there is anything Scottish or Irish that comes close at that price. Off the top of my head, it would cost about $70-$75 for something like Glenmorangie or Arberlour for the same quality.

Starward (distillery used to be in Essendon fields but now moved to Port Melbourne) is unique and high quality for something Australian and affordable (though you'd be looking at about $80 a bottle as a minimum). Don't be put off by the age not being displayed. The reality is that there is no need to age the whiskys here as long because the dramatic temperature fluctuations over the course of a year mean that the aging process only takes a few years (whereas in Scotland it takes 10 years because its alwayscold). They don't want to call it a 2-4 year old because it would look amateur compared to everything else.

I think price is an important factor in assessing whisky because price and quality are assumed to be linked. Often prices is a result of scarcity and cost of production rather than a representation by a distillery that "this is our best whisky". Talisker, for example, makes a number of limited editions and other more expensive variations which I do not think are as good (even if that are half as expensive again) as the 10 year old which is a more balanced drink.

You absolutely do not have to spend an arm and a leg to buy excellent whisky. The Tailsker and Ardbeg whiskys I've referred to above embarrass Blue Label, for example, at less than 1/3 of the price.
 
Last edited:
On my recent trip to Tassie I came back with a couple of bottles from Hellyers Road, the 12 year old and the slightly peated

Highland park 12 year old is a good place to start on single malts
 
Jade said:
Smoky for me. But in small doses.

Rarely if ever would I sit there and have a session on whisky. Would be a waste of good booze.
Click to expand...
Struggling with this part at the moment.
 
7ae2ea763a3feefe1e1351194dc74c09.jpg


Revisiting this tonight.
 
BrunoV said:
Hopefully it is better than the 21 which is pound for pound the worst whisky I've had, even more pointless than Blue Label.
Click to expand...

Yeah the 21 had me wary of this.

By and large, a fantastic drop. I'd describe it as really well rounded. Smooth and flavoursome, but lacking a real distinctive hit. Some people love that. To me it is the sort of thing that people that like to add a drop of water would be all over.

While I thoroughly enjoyed it, if I were paying that much I'd want to have a more offensive experience.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Andronicus said:
Yeah the 21 had me wary of this.

By and large, a fantastic drop. I'd describe it as really well rounded. Smooth and flavoursome, but lacking a real distinctive hit. Some people love that. To me it is the sort of thing that people that like to add a drop of water would be all over.

While I thoroughly enjoyed it, if I were paying that much I'd want to have a more offensive experience.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Glenfiddich in general then.

Perfectly fine, but lacking oomph.
 
Runknisse said:
Ok - reading this thread is not helping me with my alcohol avoidance. Man, I'm 41 and have never had any whisky. Aside from 2 shots of glenfiddich before my wedding.
Click to expand...
Shots? You mean glasses, not shots? Surely!

Doss Andronicus Jade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LordLucifer
Meet Up "BIG VINYL DIG" - Essendon 2024
Replies
3
Views
430
LordLucifer
LordLucifer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top