HOWEVER - just as it is with wines, other spirits are also often subjected to blind tastings, and when a consensus of educated palates agree about the superiority of something, it becomes damned likely that it is simply "better". Of course, it goes without saying that it doesn't matter which is the better orange when you're comparing apples to oranges. If what your taste craves is the best apple, the best orange simply won't do.
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?
I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Yes, I know that all snobs dislike blended whiskies.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
That is not really a HOWEVER.
Better blended whiskies could exist.
But it is just not done. It is not produced.
Nobody would pay the higher price.
There is a lot more foolish snobbery in the field of whisky than there is in the field of wine.
A pity.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
"Single Malt only" lovers are like those terrible snobbish snobs who pretend that they never drink anything but the most expensive French wine every day.
Und nothing less than Château Pétrus.
but a single malt, especially a single barrel single malt, tells a story that no blend can ever compare to.
Pfft!! The little people all prefer Bordeaux. For me, there is nothing more compelling than a fine Bordeaux and nothing less than Romanee-Conti will do!
And after 4 or 5 shots who the hell can honestly taste the difference, or even care what they are drinking?
May I ask again:
Just as a cuvée may be better than a single-grape-wine - why can't a blended whisky not also be better than a single malt in some cases?
You stiil do not see my point.
You are talking beside the point.
Good bye ....
You stiil do not see my point.
You are talking beside the point.
Good bye ....
Many of the best Champagnes are a cuvee. For example, Veuve Clicquot Brut is a fine champagne and quite affordable.
I dis-agree.
See above.
A single malt could be quite bad - in theory.
But then it would just not be marketed.
Just as better blended whiskies are not marketed.
It is all just a matter of marketing.
The Yamazaki 12 that I have is an absolutely fantastic whisky that stands up for itself across the board.
I like Brut's, my wife like Peach Moscato. That's how unrefined we are. I'd love to learn more about wines, because I DO love some reds and Merlot's. My wife, not so much, so I dont get to drink much because I don't want to open and try to close a half bottle.
So mostly I stick to a wide variety of beers, scotch and cognac.
Is it sweet? Peaty? something different?
It does no good to buy and drink something you don't like.
My "thing" is Italian wines from central Italy. I love some of the Brunellos but, frankly, I've had table versions of Sangiovese that are outstanding and more approachable for the common consumer.
I totally agree. Simply being a single malt does not confer greatness on a whisky. Being a great whisky is the key and many people don't understand exactly what a "single malt" is. Many people assume that a "single malt" is the same as a "single barrel" and that a "single barrel" means a drop from a single run of whisky. That isn't exactly the case.
A "single malt" does not mean a single run from a single distillery. It merely means that the drop came from a single distillery. It may well be a blend from different barrels at different stages of maturity but all from a single distiller. It's a marketing thing. A 15 year old single malt, for example, merely means that the bottle is the product of various barrels, none of which are less than 15 years old.
Many of the best Champagnes are a cuvee. For example, Veuve Clicquot Brut is a fine champagne and quite affordable.
Pfft!! The little people all prefer Bordeaux. For me, there is nothing more compelling than a fine Bordeaux and nothing less than Romanee-Conti will do!
I think you may have missed the sarcasm there.
Many of the best Champagnes are a cuvee. For example, Veuve Clicquot Brut is a fine champagne and quite affordable.
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?
I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Next one will be Scotch vs Irish vs Japanese vs US vs Canadian Whisky... apparently they're all the same.......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?