Years back, pretty much the only whiskies I knew were some of the blends that were popular in my parent's house, J&B, William Lawsons and Old Smuggler. I also knew Glenfiddich, but it was not often that my parents got a bottle. Whisky was really of no interest to me. But something about that Glenfiddich being of higher quality for some reason had stuck in my mind, although I didn't really realize or care why.
Much later around my 18th year in life I and some friends pooled some money together to buy and enjoy a bottle of Glenfiddich. A night to remember. Although it was more the company than the whisky. A few years later still I had purchased a bottle of my own. I wasn't into whisky still, it was just something I liked drinking on occasion.
Fast forward again a few years, my girlfriend and me went to Ireland on a holiday, in the good company of a friend. We'd been visiting Irish pubs in Belgium and had discovered that those Irish made some good whiskey too. Our special attention went to Midleton Very Rare, it was really expensive in the pubs, my friend and I had both set our minds to buying a bottle in Ireland so we could enjoy it back home at a relatively cheaper price.
Ireland was a hit, and next year we went back. We carefully planned our route to pass Midleton distillery, which we intended to visit. I must admit that I went a little crazy in the distillery shop and bought no less than three bottles. A Jameson 15 year old, a Jameson 12 year old of the distillery reserve, and a Midleton Very Rare. Truly the whisky virus must have gotten me there and then, because I had just bought what would become the start of my collection. Back home I started to look out for whisky tastings. That was quite difficult back then, as there weren't that many as nowadays. But I managed to score one or two anyway. I had caught on to the blend/malt difference, and regularly bought malts in the supermarket.
In the mean time whisky popularity was rising and tastings became easier to find. My collection had already considerably grown, and I was now buying from specialized stores. I had already developed a fairly good idea of the taste range of whiskies in general. I loved them all. In the last few years a nearby drinks store has started organizing regular whisky tastings, and I try to attend all of them. As a result I have now tasted literally hundreds of different whiskies and own about a hundred myself.
I have now come to the point where I think of myself as a whisky connoisseur, one step beyond whisky enthusiast, but not a true whisky buff either.
Irish whisky will always have a place in my bar, and it pains me to see many people dismiss them so easily. I really love the true Lowland style whiskies, in fact one of the most amazing whiskies I've ever drunk was a 1981 St.Magdalene bottling by Gordon & MacPhail's. Islay also has a few of my favourites, but for me, nominating a favourite whisky is sheer impossible, because any choice I make, would only do injustice to all the others I really like.
So that's more or less how I became a whisky aficionado, what's your excuse ;)
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Belgian Whisky II
Belgian whisky is booming! I recently tasted two more new Belgian whiskies. "Gouden Carolus" and "The Belgian Owl".
Gouden Carolus is made by a Belgian brewery. These guys distilled their malt beer and had the spirit mature for four years. Currently only available at the brewery itself, it is more of a rarity, and not a serious commercial product (yet). I tasted it, it was really interesting to find the character of their beer prominently in the product. My best guess is it is due to the type of yeast they use.
The Belgian Owl is made to resemble Scottish whisky. I've only tasted young cask samples, but they have a promising product. I'll make sure to get my hands on some of the resulting whisky and assess their progress.
So Belgium now has three whiskies. I guess the whisky hype isn't about to recede just yet.
Gouden Carolus is made by a Belgian brewery. These guys distilled their malt beer and had the spirit mature for four years. Currently only available at the brewery itself, it is more of a rarity, and not a serious commercial product (yet). I tasted it, it was really interesting to find the character of their beer prominently in the product. My best guess is it is due to the type of yeast they use.
The Belgian Owl is made to resemble Scottish whisky. I've only tasted young cask samples, but they have a promising product. I'll make sure to get my hands on some of the resulting whisky and assess their progress.
So Belgium now has three whiskies. I guess the whisky hype isn't about to recede just yet.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Independent bottlings
I once met a man who was a member of a whisky club, this was in the days I was myself fairly new to whisky, who assured me independent bottlings were always superior to the standard distillery bottlings. I strongly disagreed with the man. I guess I still do, although I can see his point.
A standard bottling is created in a totally different way from an independent bottling. The distillery is looking for consistency, so they use their entire stock of casks to compose the same (or very much the same) whisky every time. Their brand is associated with a specific taste, and they have to reproduce this every time. Sometimes they make a limited or exclusive series, which is unique but in the general direction of their standard product.
An independent bottling is unique every time. The independent bottler has a much more limited stock of casks from any given distillery and usually bottles one cask at a time. This bottling's quality depends on that one or two casks it was made from, so there is no way of balancing a lower quality cask with a better one. Of course (most) independent bottlers select the casks, they want to bottle for quality, (yes some will just bottle anything).
So it seems reasonable to conclude that a standard distillery bottling has a consistent quality, and an independent bottling can be better or worse, depending on the casks they bottled.
As a connoisseur a standard bottling is good, but since it is the same every time, it seems more interesting to explore the wild variety of a plethora of independent bottlings. Sometimes they may disappoint, but there is also the very real possibility of finding a hidden gem.
The man from the whisky club claimed independent bottlers would only buy the high quality casks from distilleries and therefore each of their bottles would be better than the distiller's. It seems highly unlikely to me a distillery would sell only their best casks to an independent bottler. Furthermore, this claim relies on the fact that bottler's would buy matured casks from the distillers. Most of the time it works the other way around. Bottlers, typically blenders, have filling contracts with distilleries, or buy unmatured casks, and only years of maturing will prove it to be bad, average, good or perhaps even great. Douglas Laing co., as a blender, has filling contracts with distilleries, and opts to bottle some exceptionally good casks as single malts, and the rest goes to the blending. Gordon & MacPhail even mature most of the casks they buy in their own warehouses.
A bottler isn't always assured of getting only the best of casks, and so he faces a challenge : what to do with casks that are sub par? As I already mentioned, some bottler may deal with this challenge by ignoring it and bottling it anyway. Others, such as Douglas Laing, just use these for their blend, and others still, such as Gordon & MacPhail, have large enough stocks and the know-how to combine several casks to get a good quality result.
If you want to buy an independent bottling, you as a consumer face a wager, will this bottling be worth the price you pay for it? There aren't many guidelines. Not much on a whisky's label can tell you about what you will find inside. Distillery? If it's only one or two casks they are no way guaranteed to taste anything like the distillery's standard. Age? Given that every cask reaches a peak in quality, and that this peak is different for every cask, age is no useful guideline at all. Vintage? Is of absolutely no consequence. The type of cask may give you some general idea, but doesn't assure quality at all. In the end you'll have to rely on the bottler. Is he committed to bringing high quality products to the market, or is he just interested in another sale. Knowing how the bottler operates helps, but nothing beats experience. If a bottler hasn't let you down, time after time, it's not likely you're going to get rubbish the next time. It all comes down to reputation.
Lastly :
I want to note that some distilleries' standard bottlings are so varied that it becomes hard for the customer to discern a typical taste or nose for that distillery, I'm thinking of Bruichladdich, Glenmorangie, etc. Whether this is commercially a wise move, only time will tell.
A standard bottling is created in a totally different way from an independent bottling. The distillery is looking for consistency, so they use their entire stock of casks to compose the same (or very much the same) whisky every time. Their brand is associated with a specific taste, and they have to reproduce this every time. Sometimes they make a limited or exclusive series, which is unique but in the general direction of their standard product.
An independent bottling is unique every time. The independent bottler has a much more limited stock of casks from any given distillery and usually bottles one cask at a time. This bottling's quality depends on that one or two casks it was made from, so there is no way of balancing a lower quality cask with a better one. Of course (most) independent bottlers select the casks, they want to bottle for quality, (yes some will just bottle anything).
So it seems reasonable to conclude that a standard distillery bottling has a consistent quality, and an independent bottling can be better or worse, depending on the casks they bottled.
As a connoisseur a standard bottling is good, but since it is the same every time, it seems more interesting to explore the wild variety of a plethora of independent bottlings. Sometimes they may disappoint, but there is also the very real possibility of finding a hidden gem.
The man from the whisky club claimed independent bottlers would only buy the high quality casks from distilleries and therefore each of their bottles would be better than the distiller's. It seems highly unlikely to me a distillery would sell only their best casks to an independent bottler. Furthermore, this claim relies on the fact that bottler's would buy matured casks from the distillers. Most of the time it works the other way around. Bottlers, typically blenders, have filling contracts with distilleries, or buy unmatured casks, and only years of maturing will prove it to be bad, average, good or perhaps even great. Douglas Laing co., as a blender, has filling contracts with distilleries, and opts to bottle some exceptionally good casks as single malts, and the rest goes to the blending. Gordon & MacPhail even mature most of the casks they buy in their own warehouses.
A bottler isn't always assured of getting only the best of casks, and so he faces a challenge : what to do with casks that are sub par? As I already mentioned, some bottler may deal with this challenge by ignoring it and bottling it anyway. Others, such as Douglas Laing, just use these for their blend, and others still, such as Gordon & MacPhail, have large enough stocks and the know-how to combine several casks to get a good quality result.
If you want to buy an independent bottling, you as a consumer face a wager, will this bottling be worth the price you pay for it? There aren't many guidelines. Not much on a whisky's label can tell you about what you will find inside. Distillery? If it's only one or two casks they are no way guaranteed to taste anything like the distillery's standard. Age? Given that every cask reaches a peak in quality, and that this peak is different for every cask, age is no useful guideline at all. Vintage? Is of absolutely no consequence. The type of cask may give you some general idea, but doesn't assure quality at all. In the end you'll have to rely on the bottler. Is he committed to bringing high quality products to the market, or is he just interested in another sale. Knowing how the bottler operates helps, but nothing beats experience. If a bottler hasn't let you down, time after time, it's not likely you're going to get rubbish the next time. It all comes down to reputation.
Lastly :
I want to note that some distilleries' standard bottlings are so varied that it becomes hard for the customer to discern a typical taste or nose for that distillery, I'm thinking of Bruichladdich, Glenmorangie, etc. Whether this is commercially a wise move, only time will tell.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Belgian Whisky
Two weeks ago the moment had arrived, I would taste the first Belgian whisky. Goldlys, as it's called is a product from Filliers distilleries, who traditionally make gin. It comes in a 3 year old and a 10 old variety. I tasted the 10 year old.
I had heard some bad comments on it before I tried it myself, but I set my mind on trying to like it no matter what they said and, when I did finally taste it... it was a bit of a letdown.
Mind you, I was expecting it to not taste like any whisky I had ever tasted, since it was technically a grain whisky, which went through a column still as well as a pot still. Well it was nothing like any whisky I'd had before, but it was a lot like, well gin. Only less aromatic. Grains were predominant, and I distinctly felt they could have done more with the product.
Later that night I got some inside information. Apparently the thing wasn't half bad before they chill filtered and coloured it, but Filliers couldn't resist going all out commercial and, even for the 10 year old aimed for the mass market. Although with what they have, I doubt it'll strike gold. Goldlys is somewhere between gin and whisky, and I don't think whisky lovers, nor gin lovers will develop a taste for it.
So our hopes remain with "The Belgian Owl", which should be the first Belgian single malt ever, and which will reach 3 years of age soon. I'm told that project is trying to be a Scottish style malt, I'm hearing good things about it. I hope it can deliver, because Goldlys doesn't cut it for me.
The sad part is that Filliers is the importer of Glenfarclas in Belgium, and have a long tradition of distilling, so they sure had the knowledge at hand. My guess is, they didn't have the patience to really sit down and make something good. I think all they had on their mind was beating "The Belgian Owl" to it for first Belgian whisky. Sadly they succeeded only technically.
I had heard some bad comments on it before I tried it myself, but I set my mind on trying to like it no matter what they said and, when I did finally taste it... it was a bit of a letdown.
Mind you, I was expecting it to not taste like any whisky I had ever tasted, since it was technically a grain whisky, which went through a column still as well as a pot still. Well it was nothing like any whisky I'd had before, but it was a lot like, well gin. Only less aromatic. Grains were predominant, and I distinctly felt they could have done more with the product.
Later that night I got some inside information. Apparently the thing wasn't half bad before they chill filtered and coloured it, but Filliers couldn't resist going all out commercial and, even for the 10 year old aimed for the mass market. Although with what they have, I doubt it'll strike gold. Goldlys is somewhere between gin and whisky, and I don't think whisky lovers, nor gin lovers will develop a taste for it.
So our hopes remain with "The Belgian Owl", which should be the first Belgian single malt ever, and which will reach 3 years of age soon. I'm told that project is trying to be a Scottish style malt, I'm hearing good things about it. I hope it can deliver, because Goldlys doesn't cut it for me.
The sad part is that Filliers is the importer of Glenfarclas in Belgium, and have a long tradition of distilling, so they sure had the knowledge at hand. My guess is, they didn't have the patience to really sit down and make something good. I think all they had on their mind was beating "The Belgian Owl" to it for first Belgian whisky. Sadly they succeeded only technically.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Whisky and Cocktails
Whisky is perfectly usable in cocktails. I'm not a cocktail expert. But about a week ago I saw a recipe for a whisky-based cocktail on the BBC that really struck me as worth trying.
Tonight I decided to try this cocktail, well at least to my best ability to recreate it, since I have no actual cocktail shaker. Earl Grey Tea I had plenty, and malt whisky as well.
Lacking a Macallan Fine Oak in my bar I opted for the nearly finished anCnoc 12 year old I had. Acacia honey was easily found in the kitchen.
I chose not to add the ice, as to be able to fully enjoy the resulting aroma. Shaking was also not an option so I stirred. 007 would have my hind for this insult, but wasn't anywhere in sight and I had to make do anyway.
I dropped the bag in the whisky, and waited a few minutes. The Earl Grey was doing its work, the colour darkened to a deep amber, from afar the aroma of the tea was apparent. After adding honey and stirring it, I nosed. The nose was mostly the floral and fruity Earl Grey, it greatly masked the nose I was used to from an anCnoc. I sipped. Still slightly floral, more fruit though and sweeter than the nose anticipated, but that's obviously on account of the honey. After a bit the whisky emerged, while the tea revealed oranges. The finish was long and still fruity.
I can see myself drinking this diluted with the crushed ice as an appetizer, perhaps even without the honey, which I think was added as a crowd pleaser. Infusing whisky with tea seems a nice idea. I think I'd probably use less aromatic tea, or perhaps try it with a peated malt, because, pleasing as this experiment was, I had the feeling the tea dominated the whisky a bit too much. Of course cocktail aren't made for nosing and this is very drinkable, but I don't see the point of using a malt if the balance between the aromas of are this askew. So a more robust malt like Talisker may yield a better equilibrium, and if you really just care for the tea and alcohol thingy as an easy cocktail, why not just use a good blended whisky.
- Infuse malt whisky with an Earl Grey teabag
- add a bit of honey
- add crushed ice
- shake in a cocktail shaker
- pour.
Tonight I decided to try this cocktail, well at least to my best ability to recreate it, since I have no actual cocktail shaker. Earl Grey Tea I had plenty, and malt whisky as well.
Lacking a Macallan Fine Oak in my bar I opted for the nearly finished anCnoc 12 year old I had. Acacia honey was easily found in the kitchen.I chose not to add the ice, as to be able to fully enjoy the resulting aroma. Shaking was also not an option so I stirred. 007 would have my hind for this insult, but wasn't anywhere in sight and I had to make do anyway.
I dropped the bag in the whisky, and waited a few minutes. The Earl Grey was doing its work, the colour darkened to a deep amber, from afar the aroma of the tea was apparent. After adding honey and stirring it, I nosed. The nose was mostly the floral and fruity Earl Grey, it greatly masked the nose I was used to from an anCnoc. I sipped. Still slightly floral, more fruit though and sweeter than the nose anticipated, but that's obviously on account of the honey. After a bit the whisky emerged, while the tea revealed oranges. The finish was long and still fruity.
I can see myself drinking this diluted with the crushed ice as an appetizer, perhaps even without the honey, which I think was added as a crowd pleaser. Infusing whisky with tea seems a nice idea. I think I'd probably use less aromatic tea, or perhaps try it with a peated malt, because, pleasing as this experiment was, I had the feeling the tea dominated the whisky a bit too much. Of course cocktail aren't made for nosing and this is very drinkable, but I don't see the point of using a malt if the balance between the aromas of are this askew. So a more robust malt like Talisker may yield a better equilibrium, and if you really just care for the tea and alcohol thingy as an easy cocktail, why not just use a good blended whisky.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Single blend
The Irish tasting was last night. Since it were mostly Connemara variations, it wasn't truly representative of what Irish whiskey is, but it was really enjoyable nevertheless. Seems I haven't been keeping up to date with events in Irish whisky because I learnt that Bushmills is no longer part of Irish Distillers, and is now owned by Diageo.
The tasting was promoting the Cooley distillery products and, as mentioned, Connemara in particular. I guess they market this whisky as their primary brand because it is peated, and bridges the gap between Irish and Scotch whisk(e)y. People who didn't like it claimed it wasn't strong or harsh enough for them. But most attendees agreed it were a few enjoyable drams these relatively new Irish distillers had brought with them.
Aoife O'Sullivan, brand marketer for Cooley, had a hard time fending off some comments from the die-hard Scotch lovers, but managed to keep everybody open minded.
As she expleined some more about how Cooley had originated and how it operated it dawned on me: their Kilbeggan blend was made entirely of their own produce. Part their own malt, and part their own grain whiskey : Kilbeggan was nothing less than a Single Blended whiskey. When I asked her about this, she could not but agree. Perhaps they could stir up the market by marketing it as such... who knows.
The tasting had two gems which I will probably never have the opportunity again to taste. The first being a bottle of their first distillate of Connemara. This 16 year old showed great maturity and had no reason to blush when compared to some fine Scottish peated whiskies.
The second gem was a bottle from a cask they had bottled as 'The Drunken Angel'. The reason for this is because the "angel's share" from this particular barrel had been exceptionally large. Instead of two hundred something bottles only 65 were left in the cask when they opened it. The quality of which was equally exceptional. It was something of a vanilla monster. It opened with full vanilla aroma's then had a short bitter relapse only to come back with superb vanilla cream roundness and lingered on for quite a while. If the angels had had their fair share, they must obviously like vanilla.
Don't look for 'The drunken angel' in shops, you won't find it. It is limited to six tasting sessions and that's it, one of them was the one I attended yesterday.
First tasting of the new season : full score. I had a great time. I almost can't wait until the next.
The tasting was promoting the Cooley distillery products and, as mentioned, Connemara in particular. I guess they market this whisky as their primary brand because it is peated, and bridges the gap between Irish and Scotch whisk(e)y. People who didn't like it claimed it wasn't strong or harsh enough for them. But most attendees agreed it were a few enjoyable drams these relatively new Irish distillers had brought with them.
Aoife O'Sullivan, brand marketer for Cooley, had a hard time fending off some comments from the die-hard Scotch lovers, but managed to keep everybody open minded.
As she expleined some more about how Cooley had originated and how it operated it dawned on me: their Kilbeggan blend was made entirely of their own produce. Part their own malt, and part their own grain whiskey : Kilbeggan was nothing less than a Single Blended whiskey. When I asked her about this, she could not but agree. Perhaps they could stir up the market by marketing it as such... who knows.
The tasting had two gems which I will probably never have the opportunity again to taste. The first being a bottle of their first distillate of Connemara. This 16 year old showed great maturity and had no reason to blush when compared to some fine Scottish peated whiskies.
The second gem was a bottle from a cask they had bottled as 'The Drunken Angel'. The reason for this is because the "angel's share" from this particular barrel had been exceptionally large. Instead of two hundred something bottles only 65 were left in the cask when they opened it. The quality of which was equally exceptional. It was something of a vanilla monster. It opened with full vanilla aroma's then had a short bitter relapse only to come back with superb vanilla cream roundness and lingered on for quite a while. If the angels had had their fair share, they must obviously like vanilla.
Don't look for 'The drunken angel' in shops, you won't find it. It is limited to six tasting sessions and that's it, one of them was the one I attended yesterday.
First tasting of the new season : full score. I had a great time. I almost can't wait until the next.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Irish
The first tastings were announced last week. The first one being an all Irish one. Oh frabjous day!! I love Irish whiskey. No, really! Where most of the people I know care little or not at all about the golden drink of the green island, I love their soft subtlety, their velvety mouth-feel, the memories they bring back. It's a shame so many whisky enthusiasts miss it.The tasting will be with Aoife O’Sullivan from Cooley distillery, and focuses on the range of Connemara, their staple malt, which is - unlike most Irish - peated.
Perhaps one of the reasons Irish whiskey is overlooked so much is because there aren't as many as Scottish whiskies. The list of Irish malts is short at best, and there aren't even that many blends. But they are all well worth looking into. In fact the Irish malts I know are :
- Connemara
- Clontarf
- Knappogue Castle
- Locke's Malt
- Magilligan
- Magilligan Peated
- Bushmills
- The Tyrconnell
- Redbreast
- Green Spot
So what's your opinion on the Irish version of my favourite drink?
Monday, August 27, 2007
Awakening from hibernation
My whisky season starts budding. Perhaps a bit premature, but with the Belgian weather being what it is, it seems time for some warming drinks. And indeed I have been wetting my whistle this weekend and did a quick reintroduction of Scottish malts, with some Bladnoch, a Glenmorangie, a Pulteney and a rather peated Ardmore. Not all in one sitting, I assure you.
It seems I have to recalibrate my nose a bit after all the different beers and wines this summer.
So I hope I can find enough time to brief you about my exploits in whisky land.
It seems I have to recalibrate my nose a bit after all the different beers and wines this summer.
So I hope I can find enough time to brief you about my exploits in whisky land.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Summertime whisky
Hot temperatures and whisky are not a good mix for me. If it's hot the whisky stays in its cabinet. Summer is more of a beer period for me. I know several people who claim to enjoy whisky on ice in summer, and they even say they find it refreshing, but it doesn't work for me.
In fact it goes further than just whisky, anything stronger than wine is out during summer. The high levels of alcohol give me a warm sensation, and I just want to cool off.
So beer it is, or water, or chilled white wine, ...
Why this post? Well, as much as I like whisky, as much as it is my passion, there's a time and place for everything, and to me, the people drinking whisky in summer, just long for winter. I on the other hand enjoy the summer, which has its own charms.
Summer's just the time to enjoy all the other great drinks.
In fact it goes further than just whisky, anything stronger than wine is out during summer. The high levels of alcohol give me a warm sensation, and I just want to cool off.
So beer it is, or water, or chilled white wine, ...
Why this post? Well, as much as I like whisky, as much as it is my passion, there's a time and place for everything, and to me, the people drinking whisky in summer, just long for winter. I on the other hand enjoy the summer, which has its own charms.
Summer's just the time to enjoy all the other great drinks.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Finish anxiety
In this year's whisky bible Jim Murray expresses serious concerns about finishes. He acknowledges the marketing potential and the fact that great new products may come from it. But he laments the fact that a lot of bad finishes are being brought to the market. At the same time he fears finishes may distract from the true distillery product.
There is indeed much ado about finishes lately. But I think the anxious standpoint of Jim Murray may just be a bit too negative. It is true that bad finishes are being brought to the market. But distilleries who do this will soon face the commercial consequences, because the malt market is one of malt lovers who know what is good and what isn't. The larger problem is those independent bottlers, who seem to have no qualms whatsoever to bottle anything they can get their hands on, slapping on a finish just to make it seem a bit more special. Of course I am aware that certain independent bottlers are quite careful about what they bring to the market, since they know their reputation is very important. Nevertheless there seem to be bottlers who don't seem to care as much. They are the larger part of the problem, because they also hurt the distilleries, who never have consented to how their product was marketed.
The consequences are already becoming obvious : distilleries grow more and more protective of their brand name, and I expect more and more distilleries to protect their brand names more rigorously. This may hurt the malt market more than the finishes themselves. For any connoisseur the output of independant bottlers forms a major part of their interest, mainly because it greatly expands the available flavours of whisky.
Finishes themselves aren't a bad thing. It's the bad publicity an independent bottler may bring upon a distillery which may lead to a much more narrow market. Purer, yes, but also poorer.
I'm sure the last on finishes hasn't been said.
There is indeed much ado about finishes lately. But I think the anxious standpoint of Jim Murray may just be a bit too negative. It is true that bad finishes are being brought to the market. But distilleries who do this will soon face the commercial consequences, because the malt market is one of malt lovers who know what is good and what isn't. The larger problem is those independent bottlers, who seem to have no qualms whatsoever to bottle anything they can get their hands on, slapping on a finish just to make it seem a bit more special. Of course I am aware that certain independent bottlers are quite careful about what they bring to the market, since they know their reputation is very important. Nevertheless there seem to be bottlers who don't seem to care as much. They are the larger part of the problem, because they also hurt the distilleries, who never have consented to how their product was marketed.
The consequences are already becoming obvious : distilleries grow more and more protective of their brand name, and I expect more and more distilleries to protect their brand names more rigorously. This may hurt the malt market more than the finishes themselves. For any connoisseur the output of independant bottlers forms a major part of their interest, mainly because it greatly expands the available flavours of whisky.
Finishes themselves aren't a bad thing. It's the bad publicity an independent bottler may bring upon a distillery which may lead to a much more narrow market. Purer, yes, but also poorer.
I'm sure the last on finishes hasn't been said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
