EPTTL Whiskey fans? - Page 67
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 19 2015 11:47 Sadist wrote: id skip bowmore 15 as I think for one reason or another the peat flavor is dilluted in it and it has way more sherry and berry notes. I think that's the beauty of it. I've figured out at this point that I'm not one for peat bombs. I'd say that I'm one of the few people who like Bowmore 12 over Ardbeg 10 because to me it feels more complex and although the smoke is less enjoyable to me, it comes with a lot of extra stuff beneath it. I haven't been able to "dig" far out of the smoke with Ardbeg, which is fine but meh. This is where the Bowmore 15 shines. You get the smoke from the 12, but it's very much hiding behind the cask influence. If I were richer, the Bowmore 15 darkest just might be one of my go-to whiskies as an all-rounder. It gives a pleasant quantity of smoke that is not too challenging, a sweetness with is not overbearing and a character which is easily distinguishable from younger and cheaper mass produced whisky. The Bowmore 18 is certainly good (I say this from having had a tiny glass of it), but to me it never tasted like I was drinking a $125 product (let alone a $180 product here). It felt like it could have been a 12 year old Islay. Very good, don't get me wrong, but none of the luxurious feel of the 15, none of the character which to my senses make the 15 very different from the rest of their line. That being said I think it's pretty fucked up of Bowmore to name the 15 "darkest" considering that they actually add color to it. Come on... Also now I want to try the Tempest just to see what all that fuss is about. Edit: Oh wow it looks like tomorrow they'll have JW green label for sale at the fancy liquor store. Should I get that? Doesn't come around too often... Though it was discontinued or like for duty free shops only. | ||
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
| ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 22 2015 00:15 bluegarfield wrote: Big thanks to advices from people here that I found Glenmorangie lasanta and really love it. not sure the correct way to describe but it feels smooth and has nice aftertaste. I wonder if there is something else similar to it to try. Am thinking about getting the Glenmorangie original, but also want to try something new. Anything popular to recommend? Might want to try the original if you want to try something new actually. However, it's a very different whisky from the Lasanta. Glenmorangie original is matured in bourbon casks, which were (obviously) previously used for maturing bourbon, and as such they retain a character that is already akin to whisky. It's very different from the Lasanta, which drew from sherry bourbon and is therefore a lot more sweet and fruity. If you want to try more sherried whiskies, I would recommend Glenfarclas 12. It's fairly popular though it comes from a smaller distillery. There's also the GlenDronach 12 and the Aberlour 12 that have quite a bit of sherry to them and are very soft and enjoyable even for people who don't generally like the cheaper types of whisky. If you want to pay a bit more there's the BenRiach 12 sherry, which I'm enjoying a lot right now. And if you want something without sherry, the good ole full out whiskies of this world though without peat, perhaps the classic scotches. Highland park 12 is a nice all rounder with some sherry and some peat. IDK if you've tried the entry level malts like Glenlivet 12 and such but they're actually really good if you just want a nice dram. Doesn't have much to it but it's pleasant fruitiness. | ||
|
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
| ||
|
deakachu
103 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Price seems amazingly good but I had to pay for shipping from the UK. I don't know when I will open it but I'll share my thoughts here when I do! | ||
|
billynasty
United States260 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On August 09 2015 10:23 Djzapz wrote: Well I was not suggesting that the previous content makes for a better barrel in the sense that "sherry is better than bourbon" or anything like that. But apparently certain types of wood make for barrels which are more likely to lead to better tasting whisky, and other woods just put make the whisky bitter. Almost all whiskey is aged in oak. To be a bourbon a whiskey must be aged three years in fresh oak. To be a scotch three years in oak. I am sure there are similar requirements for Irish. Not sure on ryes in the U.S. But the vast majority probably are oak. You can finish it in whatever you want and that will add flavor. but the biggest aspect that a barrel imparts is from the first barrel and moreso than its base wood, is what was in it before the whiskey. So someone telling you that different woods "are better for whiskey" is talking out of his butt. It's aged in oak and it's maybe finished in something else. And none of that makes a "quality" difference in the whiskey except insomuch as you dislike or like the flavor profile it adds. Head/tails are the large quality differentiator. Age will mellow a whiskey and make it taste more like the wood and less like the grain (also tends to mellow any peat so the very young islays tend to be the smokiest, though this is not necessarily true and it's likely some distilleries compensate by peating whiskey they want to age more more heavily) and in the end you will find whiskeys that do what you want them to across the spectrum of finishing barrels, grains, malting processes, mash additives, yeasts, and ages. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 26 2015 15:00 Goumindong wrote: Almost all whiskey is aged in oak. To be a bourbon a whiskey must be aged three years in fresh oak. To be a scotch three years in oak. I am sure there are similar requirements for Irish. Not sure on ryes in the U.S. But the vast majority probably are oak. You can finish it in whatever you want and that will add flavor. but the biggest aspect that a barrel imparts is from the first barrel and moreso than its base wood, is what was in it before the whiskey. So someone telling you that different woods "are better for whiskey" is talking out of his butt. It's aged in oak and it's maybe finished in something else. And none of that makes a "quality" difference in the whiskey except insomuch as you dislike or like the flavor profile it adds. Head/tails are the large quality differentiator. Age will mellow a whiskey and make it taste more like the wood and less like the grain (also tends to mellow any peat so the very young islays tend to be the smokiest, though this is not necessarily true and it's likely some distilleries compensate by peating whiskey they want to age more more heavily) and in the end you will find whiskeys that do what you want them to across the spectrum of finishing barrels, grains, malting processes, mash additives, yeasts, and ages. The minimum aging requirement for bourbon is 2 years, not three. As for the part about quality, it's obviously debatable what constitutes quality, and while it's true that pretty much all whisky barrels are made out of oak, not all oak is the same. Some have more tannins, others have more vanilla tastes, etc. The barrels can be washed out and certain methods can be used to pull the tannins out of the wood. Sometimes they reuse barrels various amounts of times to get different tastes. It's said that American oak gives a sweeter and more vanilla-ish taste than certain types of European oaks, which have perhaps more of the spicy elements. Many have also suggested that oak that grew slowly (for whatever reason) gives a more pleasant taste. It's hard to say what it is, but from my understanding the barrels made out of wood of certain provenance are worth more money than others. Also the previous content is important. Naturally it's subjective what constitutes better taste, and we can talk about that all day, but trees like plants have divergent characteristics. Some carrots are better than others, you know, and they vary in taste immensely depending on where they grew, how they grew, etc. So what happens in distillery warehouses is that certain spirits from the same batch actually ends up being bottled for more expensive releases while other barrels end up getting tossed in cheap blends because they came from barrels that didn't give the whisky the tastes that people like in their expensive single malts. I think it makes perfect sense that certain barrels would be better than others, and it's possibly quite hard to tell which because you can't exactly suck on a piece of wood (...!). | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
The best answer you will ever get is "taste it and if you like it buy it". | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 27 2015 03:54 Goumindong wrote: Fair. But it's not right to say that you can pick out a whiskey with a better wood. Unless you're in the industry and are tasting barrels and have your ideas not only does no one release exactly what barrel types they use but almost all whiskies will be mixed from different barrels of different ages. (Exception is "single barrel" whiskies) The best answer you will ever get is "taste it and if you like it buy it". I didn't say you pick a whisky with better wood, but many believe that the quality of the barrels is more important than the quality of the spirit itself. Like good spirit in an old barrel will give a worse result than pretty bad spirit in great wood. Of course you can only tell after the maturation has taken place, but the tasters at the distillery can tell which barrels are doing better. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 27 2015 07:02 Chewbacca. wrote: Djzapz, how are you liking the 21 Yr Parliament? I was looking at having one of the local liquor stores order either that or the GlenDronach 15 Revival for me. Sorry, I'm no use. I'm kind of a collector, I buy bottles to open them 3 years later  . Unfortunately I have this backlog of bottles. Having tried the 12, I'm super excited about the 21. But it may not happen for a little while. Maybe if I get in the PhD program which is an uphill battle. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On August 27 2015 08:44 Djzapz wrote: Sorry, I'm no use. I'm kind of a collector, I buy bottles to open them 3 years later . Unfortunately I have this backlog of bottles. Having tried the 12, I'm super excited about the 21. But it may not happen for a little while. Maybe if I get in the PhD program which is an uphill battle.Haha ok. I think I'm just going to go with the 15 for now, I hear good things about it and it'll be a bit cheaper. Might save the 21 for the next time I have a family gathering or something. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 27 2015 08:47 Chewbacca. wrote: Haha ok. I think I'm just going to go with the 15 for now, I hear good things about it and it'll be a bit cheaper. Might save the 21 for the next time I have a family gathering or something. Let me know how the revival is  | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands4025 Posts
On August 27 2015 04:57 Djzapz wrote: I didn't say you pick a whisky with better wood, but many believe that the quality of the barrels is more important than the quality of the spirit itself. Like good spirit in an old barrel will give a worse result than pretty bad spirit in great wood. Of course you can only tell after the maturation has taken place, but the tasters at the distillery can tell which barrels are doing better. Hmm, this is definitely something I'd like to know more about. Talking to 'experts' at whisky tasting sessions, you oftentimes get to hear that 70-80% of the flavour comes from the barrel and that the new spirit isn't something special. I've only tasted 2 new spirits ever, so I can't say much about it (neither was peated). Is there a big difference? And can you taste it already, or is there something chemical going on? On the other hand, I watched some whisky tours from whisky.com, primarily bourbon brands, and what really puzzled me was how precise these guys were about how much rye, barley and corn is in their mix (yes, enzymes is a thing, ok), but then they column still the hell out of their mix anyway, giving you wodka, essentially. Why is this? I just like to separate facts... | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 27 2015 19:42 aseq wrote: Hmm, this is definitely something I'd like to know more about. Talking to 'experts' at whisky tasting sessions, you oftentimes get to hear that 70-80% of the flavour comes from the barrel and that the new spirit isn't something special. I've only tasted 2 new spirits ever, so I can't say much about it (neither was peated). Is there a big difference? And can you taste it already, or is there something chemical going on? On the other hand, I watched some whisky tours from whisky.com, primarily bourbon brands, and what really puzzled me was how precise these guys were about how much rye, barley and corn is in their mix (yes, enzymes is a thing, ok), but then they column still the hell out of their mix anyway, giving you wodka, essentially. Why is this? I just like to separate facts... Well I'm no expert myself, to be honest much of my knowledge comes from reading more so than my own experience so you might say I talk out of my ass a lot but I think I'm being forward about it. Like I've tasted quite a few whiskies but never the crazy rare stuff or even any independent bottlings. Nonetheless my understanding is that american distilleries are much more centered around the consistency of the initial spirit. They're very meticulous about having very similar "white dog" (the clear liquid that comes out of the distillery process that is typically around 65%ABV) batch after batch. The type of cereals they use does have varying characteristics, like rye heavy mixes will tend to lean toward spicy and peppery tastes and malted barley will favor the sweeter notes. Since they use fresh barrels that have never been used to mature other content, the consistency of the spirit is what they mostly lean on. Scotch is a bit different because they reuse barrels of various provenances, as you know, so the mash bill (the ingredients used to make the mash) is less important. It's by no means negligible though and still plays a role, along with the water source and the intensity of the peating process (if any), in giving the finished product the distillery's character. But due to the variation in casks, many scottish distilleries release a bunch of products that are essentially single malts that are blends of various casks from the same distillery that matured with such and such characteristics. So basically in the US, if they want to release 4 different products, they have a few different mash bills and the differences in their products either comes from not being watered down, so you get simply a higher proof product, or it's just a different mash bill that is matured in the same barrels. There are also some variations in the maturation, as you've perhaps seen in the whisky.com videos, coming from the location of the barrels in the warehouses. In Scotland, you generally have the same mash bill across the board for all of its releases, but you get different releases with very different characteristics based on the provenance and the previous content of the barrel, or the number of times the barrel has been used. Like, cheap blends will often have a lot of grain, much less barley and malted barley, and the casks they use for maturation have perhaps been used 3-4+ times, which is why they add color to JW Red Label otherwise it'd look like piss. | ||
| ||
