Quote:
Originally Posted by
DWFII 
I'm not a fan of Black...or any blended whisky...although to be fair I haven't done much more than dabble with them.
But I think it's belabouring the obvious that Craggenmore tastes entirely different than Glenmorangie. And Glenmorangie tastes different than Talisker. Talisker tastes different than Laphroig. And Laphroig tastes very different than Lagavulin. Which, in turn, is quite distinct from Ardbeg. No matter the bottling.
Yet each of these has it's own complexities and depth. As with wine. And when has blended wine ever risen above the mundane?
The idea that blending unique and distinct whiskies will produce something better is almost irrational. How can those unique flavours...which each of the above mentioned is known for...survive to register on the palate when they are subsumed, even overwhelmed, by other unique flavours? At best the result is acceptable, maybe rarely, even notable...but at worst it's just confusion.
And to say that people who "don't like Black, probably don't really like Scotch" is, in my opinion, almost nonsensical (no disrespect intended). In fact, the reverse is probably more true--people who
like blended whiskies "probably don't really like Scotch"--that unique and singular taste that each region produces.
With whisky...as in life (the water of life)...more is almost always less.
Just my 2bits...
I know what you mean, hence the qualification of my statement. I am nothing if not a champion of terrior, but the fact that there are incredible nuances given to spirits or wine by terroir does not mean that it is nonsensical to believe that someone who does not like a blend of spirits (each with their own terrior) is unlikely to enjoy the individual spirits that have been blended. At the very least it is arguable. There are times when a blend results in destructive interference of its component parts, but I don't belive this is the case with Black. Furthermore, it has a lot of Speyside and Islay malts in it -- including two of my favorites, Caol Ila and Royal Lochnagar-- which are absolute classics, and it is easy to detect the Speyside and Isaly influence in the blend. These are classic regions, blending blunts their nuance, but it does not turn those malts into something unrecognizable. I did not propose that blending the whiskies turns them into something "better," merely that it would be surprising that if someone did not like the whole, they would be unlikely to like the parts. That's why I asked Thomas if it was the peat -- perhaps the Islays or other Island malts in there turned him off, in which case he might still enjoy the Lowland, Highland, and Speyside malts.
What I am saying, is not that La Tache is better than some random Vin de Bourgogne, but that if someone does not like the flavor profile of a blended Burgundy, then they are not likely to like La Tache. (sorry, for some reason I can't get rid of the italics).
And I have to say that there are many blended wines that I enjoy, Chateau Vieux Telegraph is one that I always stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
indesertum
i have that book.
honestly while it's great info it's hard to use because you can't buy bottles of whiskey like you can bottles of beer to taste. yo'ure probably going to end up going to a bar and the bar will have a different selection and it's a little annoying to bring up the book to consult while trying whiskeys.
the best use i found was taking mini notes at a tasting or a flight and then coming home to read about them in the book
Yah, that's what I did -- I tried various malts and compared my notes. Then I used that difference to help use Jackson's reviews to guide me to malts that I enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thomas
Well, I'll give it another go at another time, but it wasn't working for me. What I got from Black was dry, hot, spicy, peppery. FWIW, I've quite liked:
Highland Park
Macallan
Yamazaki
and, necessity compelled me to develop a taste for Chivas, but it's not something I reach for when the above bottles are around.
I may fiddle with Black and see if I'm just handling it wrong.
You are pretty experienced in Bourbon, right, Thomas? I find that Scotch doesn't work for me every day. The surprise in the things that you liked included Highland Park, which has a little bit of that peat. Dry, hot, peppery and spicy does describe some of the Isalnd malts in Black, though, so I can see where you are going. Glenfarclas is one you might really enjoy -- rich like HP and sherried like Macallan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ambulance Chaser
I was thinking of booting scotch from my heavily edited home bar because of its lack of versatility in cocktails compared to rye and bourbon, but then I had a Rob Roy with JW Black and decided I couldn't do it. Scotch has a much different flavor profile from those two whiskeys, and is probably worth keeping around for when I'm in the mood for a smoky cocktail.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a good, reasonably priced Islay? I'd like to use it to try the Penicillin cocktail and for sipping neat. I like peat and am a fan of the youngest Laphroaig (the first scotch I ever drank), but am open to suggestions.
Yeah, it's true. Scotch does not play well with others. Black is my standard Rob Roy whisky, also. I love Caol Ila 12 as a reasonable sipping Isla, but I doubt I would use it in the majority of cocktails. I know a number of people who enjoy the Bruichladdichs, though I have little experience with them. For cocktails, though, I'm not sure that an Islay is the best, especially for the Pennicilin (a real favorite cocktail of mine). I believe the original was made with Famous Grouse with a float of Laphroaig. The best Pennicilin I have ever had was at Franklin Mortgage in Philadelphia -- it had a base of Glenlivet Nadurra (a really good whisky in its own right) with a float of Caol Ila. Smashing! I really don't think the Pennicilin can be well made without two whiskies.
~H
