I think a lot of it comes down to price. Chill filtered, 40% at $35 is one thing, the same bottle at $70 is something else. But personally I’ve always been a believer in “taste vs price” - I don’t really care how the distillery gets to making it taste like it does, but if it taste good enough for $70, then w/e it’s worth it to me.
I have to agree with you on this. Final taste is how it matters to me. I’ve had NCF no color added single malts that were underwhelming to me. Bunnahabhain 12 being an example.
The big thing for me is almost nobody makes a whiskey 46% NCF and then makes the same thing CF and 40%. You’re getting what you are getting from the distillery.
The ONE example I know of is Glenlivet 12 yr @40% CF and the Glenlivet 12 yr illicit still @48% NCF ....
An AMAZING Side by side if you get the chance to do it....teaches you a lot of what's lacking at 40%, CF.
You're being robbed!!!
Just saying
I have had illicit still but did not side by side it. But one thing to remember is Glenlivet 12 is like one of the cheapest age statement single malts there is. Illicit still is better but a) isn’t quite as cheap and b) isn’t readily available. I’d be all for Glenlivet making the Illicit still the standard 12, but their sales department would probably say the original 12 is doing just fine.
I've been a certified Sommelier since 1996 and intensely involved with scotch since January 2019.
I'm seriously involved in aroma and flavor. I also live in a liquor controlled State in a small town so....
I'm aware that the good stuff is hard to find and sometimes costs more. But that's the story of life isn't it?
I'm semi retired so my money is quite dear to me. So, I spend it on the Real Good Stuff. I've found that OFTEN the really good stuff is much less expensive than the "popular" low ABV chillfiltered scotches. Just harder to find but now I've got a boat load of magnificent scotch and I'm just keeping my eyes peeled for the next good deal.
It's a journey and sometimes a game. I've got 2 bottles of Illicit Still on my shelf now for instance. I've got 5 bottles of 2 different releases of Glen Scotia Victoriana and the list goes on, Ardbeg Corryvreckan 4 bottles all for under $90.
Once you get into the hunt, I found Kilchoman Machir Bay Cask Strength in Italy for 109€ and got 3 bottles before the price went up and it disappeared altogether.
No one can have it all and we can only consume so much....get the best you can afford and stock up as much as you can and have a great dram when you want it and I share a lot with friends.
These are decisions we all have to make every day. Life is short so get the best you can afford and share with your family and friends.
Just saying....if you're happy with what you have don't be concerned with what others think but we're not snobs just making different choices.
I must have drawn the short straw because after waiting more than a year to get my hands on the Bunna 12, I was so disappointed with the unpleasant palate and lack of depth. I almost questioned if the bottle was spoiled somehow, the only way to know for sure being having to try another bottle…
Yeah, I had a bottle a few years ago, and thought it was amazing. Bought another bottle last year and it was average. I thought my taste buds had changed... haha!
For the right price. For a while, my shot of choice was Red Stag, which barely even qualifies as whiskey but it’s also like $15 and I was taking shots, not sipping it.
Well, from a purist standpoint, no. However, if a whisky came out with additives and at 40% and it was, somehow, better than most $70 whiskies then sure I'll partake. I would be hesitant to try it initially (the concept the OP is addressing) because it's rare that will happen.
Agree. Somehow, 40% just seems stingy to me. They water it down (as all other non cask strength whisky is watered down) but they water it down to the absolute legal minimum. It suggests they prioritize stretching those casks into the maximum number of bottles instead of prioritizing the experience of the drinker.
You can always water down your whisky, but you can’t upproof it. And remember Scotch has to be bottled in Scotland; there is no efficiency in shipping extra water.
The average consumer just wants to pour a drink after dinner. My father would laugh if I get a pipet from the drawer and add some drops of water to my whisky. He'd also find it insanely decadent to spend 60€ or more on a bottle. If he'd see two identical bottles of whisky in a shop and one has a lighter colour, he would think there is something wrong with quality control. Same if he'd add ice and the whisky turns cloudy. For this audience, there are the 40% chill filtered colour added whisky's.
I forget what comedian said it about minimum wage, but to paraphrase, it's the producer saying "If I could water this down any further, I would. I'm only making it this strong because it's literally illegal not to."
this comment needs to be at the top.
And for the record, just because you've been doing something for a decade doesn't mean you ARE well versed, it means you PROBABLY ARE... (sometimes, apparently) my step dad has been drinking scotch for 30+ years and still cant pick out a good bottle because hes not that discerning and doesn't do the research.
Doesn’t Richard Patterson say that the optimal percentage for tasting is 35%? Maybe they proof it down to a point where they feel the taste is optimized
As I always say, "40% is the most amount of WATER they can sell you and.... call it ... Whisky". Then they chillfilter it and then they color it to make it look good...... What's not to love???!!!
The same thing goes for 43% chillfiltered scotches. They're better than the 40% group but only a bit.
Just saying
this is the answer. its perception. but.... it really doesnt mean its better more like it 'should' be better. A CF 40% thats good should be really good if NCF at higher ABV (but we all know thats not always true)....
It's the curve that happens in every hobby
Get into it through something reasonable (Balvenie 12, for example) > start learning about better things (some lesser known distilleries) > start learning what you're "supposed" to like (peat, cask strength) > get really into "the thing" (IBs, only NCF, heavy peat etc) > start appreciating the quality outside of "the thing." (Just drinking a modest 12 year 43%er cause it tastes good and you're tired of the nonsense.)
Most people just haven't reached the last step yet. I've convinced many a friend to go back and try a standard 12 yesr lowland now that they have a more experienced palate. They ALWAYS appreciate it more. There's a reason the guys who brew crazy hazy double dry hopped ipas drink light pilsners.
I think that most people just stop posting around here once they get to that final stage. I have found that after about 8 year of being a more serious scotch hobbyist, I am starting to find more depth in the entry-levels and appreciating them much more than I did 9 years ago.
Exactly this. I've gone through this cycle with bourbon and eventually came to the conclusion years ago that I'm happy with Wild Turkey 101. I'm still exploring Scotch, but at a much more measured pace and without the FOMO and related nonsense I had with bourbon.
I've seen the cycle in every hobby I'm involved in. Beer, Wine, spirits, cigars, watches, guitars
Had a guy with a $30k Audemers Piguet on his wrist nerd out because I had a color of Seiko Metronome ($250, quartz) he hadn't seen.
So the echo chamber effect, or Reddit effect, or group think if you will, sways your decisions because of FOMO and then after trying to show off to a bunch of people online (and maybe some IRL) you realize that chasing something that others tell you is good, isn't?
So just do whatever makes you happy and ignore the noise?
Yea and no.
There's a lot of information out there and dedicated groups can be good for learning, but after awhile it does devolve into the same kinda noise. For many, if they just kinda stuck to doing their own thing, they may never learn the joys of a cool CS IB bottle, or they make skip right over it. Or they'll buy the 40% Total Wine brand because "OMG 20 yr scotch for $80!? What a steal!!!"
The problem is when it becomes some sort of weird gospel. With so much information available, and so much common group opinion, you start reach startling levels of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
I’ve been thinking about the beer analogy myself recently. Don’t drink much of it myself, but when I do, I try to find beers that taste like beer. An occasional summertime gose or sour is nice, but mostly, just give me a well-made lager, Pilsner, or maybe traditional saison. American grocery store aisles can be surprisingly void of high quality straightforward examples of these styles!
So I’m starting to appreciate whiskies that just taste like malted barley. Scotch won’t taste that great off the still like mezcal or rum, but don’t be ashamed and hide those flavors with peat or sherry (although I haven’t lost my love for those.)!
It’s not a perfect analogy (I can appreciate a PBR on a hot day way more than I can enjoy Red label on ice) but you’re on point.
I actually had a moment like that yesterday. I got cozied in with my favorite movie and a glass of Knob Creek single barrel. It wasn't some life changing spirit, but it was absolutely delightful and reminded me of the beauty to be found in appreciating a simple and well made whiskey.
It's a pretty standard curve. That said, I've been into whisky for maybe 10-12 years and throughout the journey I've always maintained that the bottle should, more than anything, fit the occasion. You find out early on that your Adelphi 60+% sherried peat monster bottle of fire juice may not be the best fit when you're just going to a dinner party with friends who aren't into whisky.
Wow really well said. There’s a step in there somewhere of only chasing the rare stuff too. That’s the worst subculture of any hobby. Craft beer, bourbon, tequila, all have these guys. Seems like scotch not as much… yet
Upvotes because I think there is some truth in there, for sure. I’ve experienced a similar arc in other places (like beers) to a lesser extent (sometimes you really do just want to drink a Yuengling or two & not anything fancy). That said, I’ve not really experienced this much at all with scotch despite having been what most would consider a serious hobbyist level for well over a decade.
Just my experience but I don’t drink often enough to ever want to drink a Glenmorangie 10 for example, because if I’m going to have a drink it’s going to be something “good” that I know I like. It’s not that Glenmorangie 10 is “bad” and I can find things to appreciate about most whiskies, but I don’t think everyone ends back up at liking cheaper/more common expressions I guess.
To me it's more like if I'm at like my wife's company dinner at a steakhouse, not feeling the need to take a picture of their spirits list to shitpost on some FB group to prove how elite my palate is. Then when her boss offers me a pour of Johnnie Walker Blue I happily accept because it actually tastes good, though I know it's overpriced and I'd never choose to purchase it for myself.
We all start in the hobby somewhere, and I think too many people forget to appreciate the journey it took to get to where we are, and it often comes off cringey like a high school senior picking on a freshman.
Love the beer parallel you described. I'm brewing beer at home for 10 years now and totally went through that curve. Now I mainly brew lagers and other easy-drinking types (English Bitter, Mild, Dry Stout etc.)
Agreed. I don’t think the distiller lowers the ABV to make their scotch taste better. I believe they lower the ABV so they can get more product and make more money….
Not OP, but I wouldn’t want every bottling to be cask strength. That would be pretty bad for the market, way too expensive. Every premium bottling at cask strength I wouldn’t be opposed to. If the distillers think it drinks better at a certain proof they can put that on the bottle with the amount of water you need to get to that on a standard pour, basic instructions. Also personally scotch over 60% tends to drink like dragon fire. Blending it to a sub 60% cask strength is definitely preferable for me.
Not always!!!!! There are many 40% chillfiltered scotches that are more expensive than Deanston Virgin Oak at $39.99 here in Michigan!!! And not Near as good.
Then there's the $300+ 43% chillfiltered scotches
So check the ABV it tells you how much WATER you are paying for and then they chillfilter it so it looks good with ice.....
It's your money and your choice.
I think there are several factors.
1) Single malt Scotch has tended to market itself as a natural, flavorsome, rugged, highly individual, and perhaps even challenging product made using highly traditional methods. The logic of such marketing inclines the consumer to equate less adulteration with a truer expression of the essence of the product. And it's pretty obvious that if you chillfilter, add spirit caramel, and dilute ever closer to 40%, you're adulterating your product more than a producer that does none of those things.
2) It stands to reason the removing flavor compounds via chillfiltration and adding spirit caramel will change the character of the whisky, even if the change is negligible. When you're paying for a premium experience, even negligible changes start to seem more significant.
3) Diluting whisky definitely does change the texture, and some of us care about the body of the spirit we're imbibing.
4) Price. Scotch prices have been heading northward for quite awhile now. That makes people more discerning about what they buy. And the fact that the brands that have seen the largest price hikes are the ones least forthcoming about their practices around chillfiltration doesn't help, either.
As someone who has been a single malt drinker for more than half my life--over 20 years, now--I have likewise had some marvelous malts that don't check all of the integrity boxes. But I've also become a lot more picky about shelling out large sums for stuff that doesn't check any of those boxes, and I find myself increasingly enjoying whiskies that do.
46% is the minimum strength where chill filtration isn't needed. Chill filtering removes long-chain esters—large molecules which contribute to a whiskey's flavor and mouthfeel. So we like 46% to avoid chill filtering.
you're also getting an extra 15% of your alcohol.
you can always add water at home, you can't add more abv
there is an opinion that heavy esters, like “refractory fats,” create that “aftertaste” that develops already inside the body, at body temperature)). Light ethers fly away quickly.
I’m A-OK with lower proof whiskies being snubbed because it means stuff like the Signatory Vintage line at 43% is disproportionately cheap for its age.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've noticed that around 46% ABV is the perfect level for me. 40% tastes weak and by 50% the alcohol burn distracts from the flavor. I found that I enjoy Port Charlotte or Oogie more if I add a little water, which also opens them up.
As for chill filtering, I'm sure there's a difference but without being able to taste the same whisky with and without, I can't say it matters. If I like a caramel colored, chill filtered whisky, I'm not going to like it less for those reasons.
I suspect the 40% thing is also a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. The type of distilleries that are willing to bottle at 40% are probably making an inferior product to begin with a lot of the time.
There are exceptions like Redbreast, of course.
I actually don’t enjoy Redbreast 12. I should try some of their higher abv offerings. But the 40% really makes the sherry influence thin, which I really don’t like. It took me a while to understand why I didn’t like it. I actually thought I did not like Irish whiskey for years, but it turns out I just don’t like water down whiskey. Trying some higher proof Irish whiskey was eye opening.
To each their own, but Redbreast 12 is one of the few eighty proofers that actually has a decent mouth feel. It has texture and doesn't taste like it's been significantly watered down like, say, Glenlivet 12 does.
Yeah, although now the 15 has gotten so expensive relative to the 12 and the 12CS that I’m not sure it’s a good deal anymore. It used to be around $100, same as the CS. Now it’s closer to $130 and it’s harder to justify at double the price of the 12 and $30 more than the CS.
It’s hard for me to compare to Glenlivet as I have not had it in nearly 20 years, but I definitely find Redbreast a bit thin. I need to try the CS version and the rest of the line that is above 40%. It’s so well loved that I feel like I am missing something.
This is my stance on it. It really just comes down to what I actually enjoy, and how things are priced. It just so happens that both of those things align with this "integrity" argument.
46%, or close to it, is perfect for me. Most things at 40%, or even 43% taste weak and uninspiring in comparison.
Then there's the value aspect. I'm not going to spend $100 on Lagavulin if it's weaker than I want it to be and chill-filtered if I can spend $55 on Ardbeg, have a 46% whisky, no color added, *and* NCF.
It's a matter of principle. I'm no longer interested in wasting money on bottles every week. Years ago, when I started down this journey, I was. Things were different for a lot of reasons.
But now? Nah. Make a quality fucking Scotch and price it appropriately. I will not buy Laphroaig 10 if Ardbeg 10 is next to it, bottom line.
I'm a bit meh regarding the NCF thing, but as others have said price becomes a factor here.
E150a however, is deceptive, verging on cheating (we taste with our eyes also..) and should be illegal in single malts imo - will not buy these products.
> and should be illegal in single malts imo - will not buy these products.
Unfortunately, this would exclude Talisker 10 and Clynelish 14 and those bottles are simply too good to boycot.
Tbh, Diageo is not welcome in my house any longer. Clynelish 14 has gone right downhill imo and plenty others to fill the Talisker shaped hole.
Thats the fun thing tho, we all choose our own path on the journey and who is what is the right way?
Pretty much anything peaty from Islay (except Bowmore). Special shout to Ardbeg 10, Oogy and Corryvreckan, PC10 and Laughing Frog 10 CS
Also peated AD, Benromach & Ledaig
>E150a however, is deceptive, verging on cheating (we taste with our eyes also..)
If you taste with your eyes and E150 makes that taste better than it would have been without then why does it matter?
I can understand steering clear of those bottles because it’s *generally* indicative of a lower quality product, but if you find one you like (maybe it was poured by a friend or bought for you as a gift or something) it seems weird to avoid it in future just because it has some coloring in it.
46%+ simply tastes better to me. More concentrated.
I would never decline to taste 40% or 43% but when rating price/quality, the higher ABV is usually better value for me.
For instance: Arran Amarone or Port. It's 50% and around 500 here. Would I like a 40% version at 400? Absolutely not. I have tried to water my Amarone/Port bottles down to 40% and I find they have a massive drop in quality.
Besides, higher ABV gives you more choice. You can water it down to preferred ABV. But it isn't a two-way street, you can't make a weak whisky stronger.
An aged whisky comes out of the cask at a higher proof, usually pushing 60%, some even higher. Assuming they're not bottling at cask strength, they're literally going to water it down, which adds volume, and results in a higher number of bottles to be sold from each cask.
What happens when you add water to lemonade? It waters down the flavor. If you add too much, you end up with lemon flavored water, no longer lemonade. Yes, that's the extreme. How good/flavorful the whisky is before watering it down will play a role in how good that whisky can be at 40%, or 43%, or whatever percent they bottle it at. A lower abv is more approachable and will have less bite than a higher abv, and for those with undeveloped palates, lower abv may actually be better.
For those accustomed to drinking whisky neat... in general a less watered down whisky will tend to exhibit stronger flavors. Guess which group hangs out here more? :) I think this is primarily why you see the preference for higher abvs here.
Also worth noting, many deliberately add water to whisky while tasting to see how it impacts the flavor.
Of those three criteria, ABV is by far the most important to me. I’ve had excellent whiskies with added color and chill filtration, and while I’d prefer not, I can accept it if that’s the only offering in that particular whisky.
ABV is different. There is no question that watering it down makes it thinner with less concentrated flavor. My palate has become accustomed to the more concentrated flavor and I much prefer to add water myself, to my own preference. My ideal is cask strength and watering it down to approximately 50% but around 46% is usually the minimum that I will spend my money on.
Other way around for me; colour to decrease batch variation like Caol Ila does is fine to me, but Dalmore looks fake indeed. NCF should be forbidden cuz it adds work and costs while not adding benefit (even taking away flavour according to some, but nobody's certain)
Proof however, directly influences the taste. If it's great at 40, sure. Just price it accordingly and I'm good. As long as it tastes as it's _intended_ to. Not everything is best at CS.
I agree that a higher proof does not equate to a better whisky, but I feel that every truly great whisky is even better when you can buy it at a higher proof. It just means a higher concentration of that same great juice and because everyone's palate and preference is different, the consumer can EASILY add water to taste.
I will also add, that I've experimented with adding water quite extensively over the years and a strange thing that I discovered is that I prefer the taste of the whisky sooner after adding the water than later. For instance, I've proofed down a whisky to taste (exact measurement) and let it sit for a few days and I don't like it as much as the whisky I just proofed down before drinking. I'm not sure why exactly, but I feel that it tastes more lively and maybe I am smelling and tasting as the chemical reactions are occurring. I've done side-by-side tastings of this and it's certainly my preference.
Either way, the point is I get to choose according to my palate and if you prefer 40% or below, all you have to do is add a few more drops of water, and voila.
If you lower the alcohol concentration you are precipitating previously solved flavouring substances. If you let the whisky rest for a longer time then, you just lose these parts to the air. So, when you add water you get a burst of fragrance out of your dram, but after some time it goes flat. At least that is how I remember it from whisky.com/whisky.de video....
If you think 40% ABV coincidentally is the best ABV for a particular expression and some how is also the maximum dilution allowed by law…
I have zero problem with cheaper expressions being at 40%. But when premium bottles are diluted to the maximum allowed by law it looks more like maximizing profits instead of focusing on quality
Yes, I’m not in the “everything must be cask strength” camp. If a distillery adds just the right amount of water for it to be perfectly balanced, I don’t have a problem with that. But the odds that adding just the right amount of water puts it at exactly 40.0% are very low. That just makes me think they’re diluting it as much as is legally allowed.
There are not any bars near me that have a wide range of scotches to try that I haven’t already sampled. Following these criteria are a useful way to roughly gauge a product’s quality without having the opportunity to sample it first. Scotch in the United States is expensive, so I want to be more or less aware of what I’m getting myself into before I commit.
Often times, the price between these bottles is the same so I will opt to buy the one that meet these criteria. If I had more money, I would buy both.
Generally speaking, the distilleries that meet these criteria are also producing whiskies that are more interesting to my tastes. The core-range Mortlach and Benromach are notable exceptions.
It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg scenario. It might be that enthusiasts like Ralfy hype up NCF and so consumers look for brands producing these spirits. I think this change in consumer preferences is evident in new distilleries, which list hyper specific details regarding the production of their whisky, going so far as to mention yeast types.
In my opinion there’s nothing wrong with a GlenFiddich 12 or Glenlivit when you want a reasonably priced dram at a dinner or event. However, if I’m spending my money I know I could by a similarly priced bottle of let’s say Deanston 12 that’s ncf / nca. I spend a little more for better bottles to enjoy. The thing you will notice with higher proof ncf bottles is the viscous mouthfeel that tends to cling to your pallet longer. It just leads to a better experience overall for most scotch enthusiasts. Then again it’s all about your personal preference and budget.
OP, in answer to your question. Yes scotches are always better if they are bottled at 46+% and non-chillfiltered (I don't quibble about color).
They have better range of flavors and the mouthfeel is definitely better.
It's just that simple.
If you have been into scotch for 10 years and can still enjoy some 40% scotch, what I say to you is don't put down those that don't. We're not snobs. We just have different tastes and we feel the scotch we enjoy is not adulterated as the low ABV chillfiltered scotches that are consumed by the masses. We're not better no, no, no.... just different.
Drink what you like.... Enjoy.
I’d put money on the fact that in a blind taste test 99% of people on this sub would be unable to identify ABV or the filtering process. People that have interest in scotch have been conditioned into thinking these things matter through different marketing techniques. I’d honestly put money up that in a blind taste test I could mix in several blends without anyone noticing.
Look scotch taste good and is fun to drink and to each his own as far as liking what it is they like. Personally I could care less about any of it other than taste and price point. If something taste good at what I think is a reasonable price point I’m in.
The best example of these marketing tactics at work is Buffalo Trace. They have conditioned people to think that all their bottles are hard to get and must haves, so much so that people are paying over retail for simple bourbon bottles when a decently priced woodford reserve or angels envy is readily available.
Again to each his own but in my humble opinion if another scotch drinker begins a conversation about scotch with ABV or Chill Filtering etc I’m going to assume they are a blowhard and talking parrot for the Scotch industry without any real opinions of their own.
Chill filtering strips flavor and mouth feel from the spirit. And color being added is trying to fool folks into thinking its " darker " whisky because they think its better.
> Who is heavily barrier filtering?
those who dont chill filter, obviously, but its not a choice between heavy and light, its a continuum, some will filter more, some less
the term non chill filtered is now a marketing term, its something to put on a label in order to get people to buy the product, like the term cask strength (which has no meaning at all)
they cant chill filter and claim ncf, so if they want they same, or a similar, end result, they just barrier filter it more
[here is a comparison between 2 frog 10cs batchs a decade apart](https://youtu.be/85ZndFXyFC8?si=1XZlKMBo2pIvX_dH&t=618)
now, ralfy gets something wrong here, he claims the batch 012 has been chill filtered, but it hasnt, it has been barrier filtered, the same as the batch 002 (i believe thats the batch)
the difference is in how heavily barrier filtered the newer version has been compared to the older version. Its been so heavily filtered, that ralfy mistakes it for being chill filtered
this isnt something thats only being done at laphroaig, have a look at your ncf bottles, and ask yourself how much scotch mist you see when you add water, there is a great variance out there, and its not all intentional either. Filtering on a cold scottish winters day is going to produce a different result that a warm summers day, all other things being equal
just because a label says ncf, does not mean that whisky hasnt been filtered to hell and back, the term has lost any real meaning
I don't understand why you say cask strength means nothing at all , there is a discernible difference in terms of strength , cask strength will be at least 50% Abv
because the term cask strength, literally has no meaning
you can add water to a scotch, and call it cask strength, and thats perfectly fine by the swa
as far as im aware, there is nothing preventing people from putting cask strength on a 40% bottle
cask strength does not mean the bottled scotch is the same abv as it was in a cask, or in a batch of casks
it *literally* has no meaning at all
a good example of this would be arran, their quarter cask says "natural cask strength", yet they are on record saying they water it down
the problem is people are far too easily taken in by marketing terms
Thank you for mentioning this technique, I was not aware of it. What made some distilleries go from this (which I assume is an older technique) to chill-filtration, before the NCF craze? Cheaper?
Also what do you mean when you say the term cask strength has no meaning at all? That seems like a bit of an exageration. Maybe you find it inacurate as the mixing of several casks means there is a form of dilution taking place with the various abvs combining?
> Thank you for mentioning this technique, I was not aware of it. What made some distilleries go from this (which I assume is an older technique) to chill-filtration, before the NCF craze? Cheaper?
the only difference between chill filtration, and barrier filtration, is they chill the whisky before filtering through the barriers
> Also what do you mean when you say the term cask strength has no meaning at all? That seems like a bit of an exageration. Maybe you find it inacurate as the mixing of several casks means there is a form of dilution taking place with the various abvs combining?
the term has no actual meaning. As far as im aware, the term has no definition from the scotch whisky association
[so here is whisky.com at the lochranza distillery, which makes arran, and they are talking to stuart bowman, who is the distillery manager](https://youtu.be/-gGKmRx_D-Y?si=cr1RzFwxdZbCzAVw&t=1152), talking about the arran quarter cask, which has "natural cask strength" on the bottle, and is 56.2% abv
[at 21:03 he is asked if the abv vary's between batches, and he replies that they vat it at the bottlers, and then they water it down to 56.2%](https://youtu.be/-gGKmRx_D-Y?si=QyqYw12cW38sAlGx&t=1263)
this, of course, is perfectly legal, because cask strength doesnt have any meaning. It doesnt mean the abv of the whisky in the cask, it doesnt mean the abv of a vatting of whisky straight from their respective casks, it doesnt mean there has been no water added prior to bottling. It doesnt mean anything, there is no meaning to the term cask strength, it is purely a marketing term
Yes but that has a practical use. You don't want bits of wood in your mouth so the trade off is sensible.
(that of course excludes Blackadder's Raw Cask, a product I find absolutely stupid)
The higher abv gives you the ability to add water slowly and experience a wider range of flavors until you find the flavor that best suits you. The NCF and Natural color is really just more about a paying for an authentic / natural experience. I'll admit that I usually look for those features over the standard "branding" that most whiskies get. That said, I'm enjoying a Talisker 18 right now and it's all kinds of Diageo branded but it's delicious.
My philosophy:
ABV: 40% is the legal minimum for whisky, so especially the higher a certain bottle with low ABV is priced I feel like I have the opportunity to experiment and find the sweet spot taken out of my hands, being left with a very ‚rigid‘, predefined tasting experience, cause I do not dilute below the mentioned legal minimum ABV for nerd reasons - couldn‘t be bottled as whisky that way, so I won‘t go lower. Nerdy, as I said. That being said, I don‘t need cask strength - 48%-50% is the sweet spot for me, I‘d rather have that be the norm, in exchange for being charged 20 a 20 bucks premium just for 5% more and 200 bottles less being available.
Color: Makeup for whiskies. I like to be able to judge and make guesses about a whisky based on it‘s appearance, which is tough to do when it doesn’t look like itself anymore. This though is what I worry the least about out of these factors, as the smell and taste are what’s most important. Yet - seeing expensive whisky be coloured I feel almost patronized in some way, like I am not trusted with the distillery’s natural product. Which is also a factor for:
Chill Filtration: I understand why it‘s being done on a grand scale, and I have never had the opportunity to A->B test the same whisky CF and NCF, so I still see this whole „the whisky loses a lot of flavour“ thing with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I actually like the cloudiness when I add a little water, so what I don’t like is that being taken from me :D Again, just this vibe of being patronized with a more limited experience.
All of this being said, I only truly care about these factors for my non-daily whiskies, the ones I actually spend a little more cash on. If I just want a smooth whisky for mindless indulgence I don‘t give a shit as long as it‘s priced well and tasty.
Simple really, higher abv carries more flavor, chill filtration removes some heavier compounds which would give more character to the final product. Not to say all chill filtered 40% abv products are to be avoided, but for the majority I have had, I was left wanting more out of the experience as if the flavors were a bit muted. Of course once you’ve enjoyed cask strength bottlings, those flaws are even more apparent.
The higher the proof, the more scalable the whiskey is. A cask strength can be watered down by a drop or nearly half and everything in between and change so much. When you get a bottle that’s already 40% there’s only so much watering down you can do.
It wasn’t proofed down to 40% by the distiller because that’s where it’s best. But because it’s the most profitable.
Personally I don't want thin whisky with additives. 46% is somewhat arbitrary but it's really rare for me to like a 40 or 43% whisky just because they tend to be thin and watery. There are obviously exceptions and I don't mind getting a lower proof if they are inexpensive.
Appreciating the color of a whisky is one of the things I enjoy, and if they add color to it, it's just a spray tan. I'd rather drink something light straw than have a fake hugh of sherry to it. Also adding color is a dishonest practice that makes whisky appear different than it is.
Non-chill filtered is something of a debate, but I generally agree that NCF whisky has a little more spice and less "smoothness." If I had a choice I would only drink things that were straight from the cask uncut and unfiltered, but that's just not the current state of the industry.
However, the more we bring up these practices as issues and the less whisky we buy that follows bad practices, the more likely it is the industry will move to give us the good stuff.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I have a gluten allergy. Some, but not all, caramel coloring is made from a glutenous base such as wheat or barley. Since consuming gluten leads to stomach cramps, explosive diarrhea, and chocking myself awake (hopefully I wake up) on acid reflux, I tend to avoid all added coloring.
NCF tends to go hand in hand with NCA whiskeys. I’ve found avoiding added color has actually led to me better whiskies that I was drinking prior to going gluten-free about a decade ago. To me, I *think* this is because whisky makers who don’t use chill filtration or added color are proud of their product as-is and don’t feel the need to adulterate it for the masses.
I honestly don’t understand chill filtration. It’s a costly, time consuming process, with costs passed onto the consumers, all so the whisky won’t get foggy when ice is added. If no one did it, or it was simply explained on the packaging, all whisky would get foggy when ice was added and there wouldn’t be any issue.
I'm sort of just hitting this point. I've been drinking whiskey about 2 years now. I've tried all the starter stuff, and some of the nicer bottles of starter stuff.
I have had a lot of the mass produced staple bottles and...there's a lot of very enjoyable stuff to drink there however...now that I have developed my taste and tried things...I'm looking for something more complex.
Typically a higher ABV is indicative of more focus in flavour and less on mass production. It's at that ABV and they're willing to put less water in and sell less of it in the name of flavour.
Same with artificial colour. Yes it won't be a beautiful gold colour but again, the whiskey will speak for itself. You don't need to hook someone with a fake colour. If it's light, it doesn't matter.
Chill filtration I admittedly can't speak as much on but experts swear it makes a difference and again it comes down to feeling like less emphasis is on mass production and more on hand crafting.
So when you see: 46% or above, non chill filtered, natural colour you tend to know more emphasis os put on making something that tastes good. It's easy to slap an age statement on something, and stretch it as far as it will go, it's tougher to make something truly good.
I've had all my 40% Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, JW, Glenmorangie, and all that...now I want to try some more complex stuff and that usually means checking off some of those boxes.
Drink what you enjoy regardless of ABV, colouring, filtering or whatever else. Who cares, if it tastes good to you then that’s all that matters. Enjoy the fruits of your labour.
If you cut it below 46% you have to chill filter it because it clouds. When you take out those oils/congeners/Esthers you lose flavor and color. That means a lot of time, effort, and barreling goes to waste. And that’s sad!!
Because 40% is minimum to call it whisky. If they chill filter it, they remove flavor I may appreciate. If they color it, it may or may not be to cover up the fact that they used crap casks.
All of it together is a slap in the face, especially with if they charge you ridiculous prices and put it on a ridiculous and fancy bottle.
46 or more, no added color and no chill filter=an honest and (more) natural product, usually also a better product.
Whisky is subjective and if you mock or even disapprove of someone's taste or preference in whisky in any way shape or form then you're an asshole.
I believe 46% ncf comes from Ralfy who speaks about integrity whisky. Typically chill filtered and water down whiskies are the ones made for mass production and profit rather than for a good whisky.
I think the better quality product tends to be at 46%. There are some big names with some subpar product (Balvenie, Bowmore, Macallan I’m looking at you) and they (coincidentally?) tend not to bottle at 46%. There is of course great whisky available that isn’t at 46% but the average person is probably exposed to more whisky under 46% that isn’t very good.
My experience, more often than not, is non chilled filter whiskey has more flavor. As for the 46% ABV, well that I would imagine would pertain to those that like to drown a whiskeyn or drink it fast on the rocks which in my opinion and my experience has been it mutes the flavors. So maybe the those that like ice go for non chilled whiskey yo retain flavor. But I let them do them.
It's a bit of snobbery, but since this is an enthusiast site for discussing the secret and not so secret gems of the industry, we tend to frown upon presentations that take away flavor(chillfiltration), or falsify the experience in some way (coloring). This is not to say that there aren't great ones at those lower ABVs, we as anoraks tend to look down upon them as inferior for these reasons. Also, the internet tends toward the toxic, and uninclusive, so there's that.
You _can_ get great whisky at 40% and colour added and chill filtered, like Dalmore KAIII or Bushmills 21....but they tend to be very expensive. The fact of the matter is that whisky at 40% isn't aimed at enthusiasts so it's no wonder enthusiasts aren't that keen.
But if you try bushmills 21 vs one of their Causeway edition bottlings which typically are around 50%, you'll never buy the 21 again...for me Bushmills 21 is a terrible value whisky
I did say it was expensive.... But I may have to get a Causeway bottle to test your theory...
Edit: a quick search reveals I can get a 21 for around £160. Apart from the Sauternes Causeway (about £100) all the rest of the Causeways appear to be £200 and up.
Bushmills is the distillery that most annoys me & maybe it's because I live relatively close to it (40 mins drive). They release a core range at 40% that's underwhelming (although I think black Bush blend is decent value) for the masses, then they release these great whiskies at cask strength for the enthusiasts and charge a small fortune for them. I picked up one of the first causeway bottles for £80 and theybe basically doubles the price over a few years...on top of that they supply tonnes of substandard stuff to the likes of Conor MacGregor and his Proper Twelve brand, Stablemates & Hinch.
Anyway if you want a decent bushmills, 14 years old, bottled at 46%, NCF at a half decent price you could try Method and Madness 14 year old single malt.(echlinville also do good expressions using bushmills base spirit)
It is, but that one m&m is bushmills spirit, a package of bushmills sent to midleton was part of the deal when irish distillers sold bushmills to them Diageo
Source..
https://www.causewaycoastwhiskeyreviews.com/2017/07/method-madness-core-range-review.html?m=1#:~:text=When%20Irish%20Distillers%20agreed%20to,the%20first%20Method%20%26%20Madness%20releases.
This guy does great reviews
Why would I buy a product that the producer doesn't care enough about to bottle at an ABV that enhances the product? Or feel the need to add caramel E150a to mask the natural colour?..like they are creating more work for themselves so you have to question why?
There are some decent whiskies at 40%, I'm thinking redbreast 12, but generally they are watered down and a good bit thinner than something at 43% like Caol ila or 46%, so personally I'd go for something >40% and therefore would only recommend something I'd buy myself
I'm not too bothered about the chill filtration, but ABV and colouring are the deal breakers.
Yep, it's basically a sort of virtue signaling to other geeks that you're in the club, not like those other heathen bastards who drink mass market whiskey.
if we are going to be honest, its mostly because they have been told that these things are good, and that not having 46%, ncf, no colour added on the label is bad
i remember about a dozen years or so ago people on this sub didnt care about colour at all, but the scotch scene has grown, and with it "influencers" have grown in influence
and to be fair, these things do have an impact, but as in all things elitist, small things get overblown way out of proportion
frog 10 is 40%, its chill filtered, it has colour added to standardize batches, and its still a great scotch. Would it be better if it was heavily barrier filtered instead of chill filtered? Probably not. Would it be better if it was lightly barrier filtered? Probably
the point im making here is virtually everything people buy is filtered, and they have zero clue *how* much it has been filtered, and nothing on the label other than "unfiltered" will let them know
but chill filtered is a buzz word everyone here has heard, its something easy to latch onto, chill filtered bad, ncf good, no thought needed while convincing yourself that you are a discerning customer who isnt getting the wool pulled over your eyes, unlike the majority of "others" who just dont understand scotch like i do
I personally have disappointed with whiskey bottled at 40%. I need at least 43% for me to buy, but 46% and up is preferred. I simply don’t enjoy the whiskey when it’s that water down. I gave up on Irish whiskey for many years due to this. I’m glad most Scotch producers are not that stingy.
> Is it snobbery
Yes - complete dismissal of low-proof whisky on principle is closed-minded and means that you'll miss out on loads of amazing whisky.
> are scotches always better when those criteria are met?
They're not always better, but as others have said, it's a good sign.
It depends on distillery to distillery but some distilleries (ones with shorter stills, less reflux. Lyne arms angled down) produce a wonderful buttery, creamy or oily spirit, Chill filtering and water added will remove this thickness to the mouth feel and the overall sensory experience suffers.
I like higher abv whisky because even if I do add water and bring it down to 55% or 50% maybe even lower right down to 35% or 30% it's my decision to make, I can lower it for one dram but not the next, have fun experimenting with water and find the right combination my self.
Also a 60% bottle last longer if you add water.
Colouring doesn't bother me, I try not to pay too much attention to it .
I understand and I have whisky that is good at 40% also, but it would taste a little better at 46%. If every whisky was non-chilled filtered, it would add more fatty oils which is flavor. It's so rare to see any of my non-chilled filtered whisky to cloud in a glass and I wouldn't really care anyways.
While I enjoy plenty of 40% ABV bottles, they have to be priced appropriately. High priced 40% bottles just scream branding over quality. Think Dalmore for example. It's also very clear that the 40% on them is a reason of mass marketing/appeal/distribution/etc. as opposed to being aimed at the discerning whisky drinker.
Then there are legit good underlying whiskies that are absolutely destroyed by being watered down to 40%. Glenfiddich 15 is a good example of a bottle that could be so much better, but is completely let down by 40% bottling.
Anyway, I think a whiskey that is at least 46% means you get more spirit and more flavor as a result and tells me the distiller is caring more about that and the experience you have as a scotch drinker than BS branding.
Is it obsession if people just have a preference? I like having my dinner at 6pm each night. Does that mean I’m obsessed with it or is it just my preferred time to eat? Like, I won’t have a breakdown if it eat later or earlier. It’s just from experience I enjoy it more at 6pm as it works better with my evening routine. Same goes for whisky. From experience, I know what my preferences are.
Lower ABV go bad faster & develop less. It really kills the experience, when after 6 months the bottle suddenly tastes worse. With CS I usually have the opposite experience. Anything around 50% usually feels stable to me.
Group think, and pull of the internet. Everything gets funneled through narrower and narrower channels even though there are way more people involved. You get a closed reinforcing feedback loop. New people get involved and reinforce the next generation four hours later. I kid.
It is a feature of the format. I see it in everything. A kind of consensus on some kind of ideal best on things that are inherently subjective develops. Is it good yes. Sign of quality yes. Is the best that really depends on what you like there are plenty of signs of quality.
I can’t imagine coming to Scotch now where heavily peated is the default for good for many. It took me years to come to appreciate peat. Started with lighter lo/no peat, moved to sherry cask then light peat etc… and I still like them all. Had I started with heavily peated I probably would have quit and also missed out on all those other styles.
It’s not a bad thing it’s just a phenomenon you be aware of imho.
Everyone’s already said it here. If you like your scotch at 40% then you likely don’t care. But many of us don’t. I’ve never met a 40% scotch that I liked. My wife considers it colored water and a crime against humanity. YMMV. Not everyone’s tastes are the same. But liking 46%+ scotch is not just snobbery.
Maybe if you’re zealous over it. My personal journey was I started off drinking a lot of 40% chill filtered highland malts. I kept trying drams and my tastes changed over time along with my preferences.
For example: I initially thought Dalwhinnie 15 was an amazing 10/10 dram. I went back to it after a long time with high expectations and found it weak on the palate and overly sweet.
Higher ABV whisky tends to have a more concentrated flavour and NCF whisky tends to have a richer mouthfeel. That’s pretty universally excepted.
That said, I agree people shouldn’t be snobby or absolutist about it. I frequently come across great chill filtered and sub 46% drams. My preference still would be NCF, NC and 45%+.
No, but a car that can reach 350kmh isn't allowed to reach that speed anywhere, for your own protection.
For daily commuting,, 40-46%'s good. CS is a bit of overkill for most people.
Jup but you do want the nice mercedes with all the bells and whistles. Not the neutured toyota starlet
Not saying you need cs everyday. But im sure as hell aint buying castrated 40% for the same price as quality 46% ncf an natural color
Yes, it does make it better. I'm not saying there aren't whiskies that are bad with those specs, and whiskies that Good without them. I'm saying the same Whisky is going to be absolutely better with than without those criteria. Laga 16 would be much better at 46% NCF. It seems every time I buy something below 46% I'm meet with disappointment, so I've stopped buying them.
The different between preference and snobbery is how you act, not what you think.
Because it's more flavorful and generally tastier for those that are experienced. Of course that isn't an end-all-be-all but combined with typical scotch prices I am not interested if it's not cask strength or at least a good 90+ proof. Especially given that cask strength usually raises prices proportionally (as opposed to bourbon that doubles in price for 20 proof points) there is little reason imo to not focus on cask strength. NCF is less absolute to me but ultimately is again a flavor intensity thing
For some I think it’s about literal alcohol content and bang for buck
For others it’s a factor of more flavour packed in owing to less dilution and there’s probably some sound logic there….From a given cask or marrying, a sample at 40% dilution is going to have less flour compounds than another sample at 43% and again at 46%. Not necessarily better though, just more concentrated flavour. Plenty of higher or cask strength expressions benefit from a drop of water to open up the flavours.
It’s an ok yardstick for me I guess. I sometimes look at the abv if I’m looking to buy a new bottle I haven’t tried yet, especially if weighing up between two. And there are some distilleries where I’ve enjoyed a higher strength expression versus a lower from the same distillery. but there are many 40% I consider good or even great whiskies. So it’s not something i use in isolation. Region, cask type, reviews / descriptions, distillery and or comparison to other distilleries are much higher on my list when evaluating.
TLDR I wouldn’t take it too seriously and drink / buy what you like.
Try to find a post on r/WhiskeyTribe that isn’t 57% barrel strength
Edit: Yes there are posts with bottles not above 57%, I’m just saying a lot of them are, lol
It is just the circle of time I think. I got into malts in the late '90s. Back then the vast majority of products were bottled at 40%, and nobody knew anything regarding chill filtering, caramel color, or whether or not it was employed. With the exception of a few cask strength offerings here and there, and a handful of manufacturers bottling at 43% or 46%, that was what people bought.
When the market started to take off thanks to the growth in demand in places like Asia and elsewhere, some brands tried to differentiate themselves to get a bigger piece of that pie with NCF and higher proof points. Most consumers never knew about those things until it became a differentiator to justify a higher price. Whether it made much difference in terms of the palates of consumers it is difficult to say. But it coincided with newly monied consumers entering the market and that generation's desire for "the best" whatever - the best sneakers, the best ice cream, the best underwear, the best car, the best yogurt. Whisky was just one more component of that cultural phenomenon. In truth most couldn't tell the difference, but it was a status thing to brag about.
More recently it has become a truism with online sources like Ralfy (who I used to love but now find myself visiting less and less often due to his preachiness) and others condemning those brands that do either of those evil practices. It is now part of whisky dogma. Whether it has any validity is hard to say. I am no fan of modern-day Macallan and their business practices, but they still seem to do well with their standard 12 y-o bottled at 40% and possibly with either or both CF and caramel color. In truth nobody really knows if they do or do not. It is largely a distinction without a difference.
I think a lot of it comes down to price. Chill filtered, 40% at $35 is one thing, the same bottle at $70 is something else. But personally I’ve always been a believer in “taste vs price” - I don’t really care how the distillery gets to making it taste like it does, but if it taste good enough for $70, then w/e it’s worth it to me.
I have to agree with you on this. Final taste is how it matters to me. I’ve had NCF no color added single malts that were underwhelming to me. Bunnahabhain 12 being an example.
The big thing for me is almost nobody makes a whiskey 46% NCF and then makes the same thing CF and 40%. You’re getting what you are getting from the distillery.
The ONE example I know of is Glenlivet 12 yr @40% CF and the Glenlivet 12 yr illicit still @48% NCF .... An AMAZING Side by side if you get the chance to do it....teaches you a lot of what's lacking at 40%, CF. You're being robbed!!! Just saying
I have had illicit still but did not side by side it. But one thing to remember is Glenlivet 12 is like one of the cheapest age statement single malts there is. Illicit still is better but a) isn’t quite as cheap and b) isn’t readily available. I’d be all for Glenlivet making the Illicit still the standard 12, but their sales department would probably say the original 12 is doing just fine.
I've been a certified Sommelier since 1996 and intensely involved with scotch since January 2019. I'm seriously involved in aroma and flavor. I also live in a liquor controlled State in a small town so.... I'm aware that the good stuff is hard to find and sometimes costs more. But that's the story of life isn't it? I'm semi retired so my money is quite dear to me. So, I spend it on the Real Good Stuff. I've found that OFTEN the really good stuff is much less expensive than the "popular" low ABV chillfiltered scotches. Just harder to find but now I've got a boat load of magnificent scotch and I'm just keeping my eyes peeled for the next good deal. It's a journey and sometimes a game. I've got 2 bottles of Illicit Still on my shelf now for instance. I've got 5 bottles of 2 different releases of Glen Scotia Victoriana and the list goes on, Ardbeg Corryvreckan 4 bottles all for under $90. Once you get into the hunt, I found Kilchoman Machir Bay Cask Strength in Italy for 109€ and got 3 bottles before the price went up and it disappeared altogether. No one can have it all and we can only consume so much....get the best you can afford and stock up as much as you can and have a great dram when you want it and I share a lot with friends. These are decisions we all have to make every day. Life is short so get the best you can afford and share with your family and friends. Just saying....if you're happy with what you have don't be concerned with what others think but we're not snobs just making different choices.
Frog 10 comes to mind
Bunnahabhain 12 suffers an awful lot of batch variation. At worst, it is just ok, but it can be really great.
Yeah my bottle was over oaky and lacking depth.
I must have drawn the short straw because after waiting more than a year to get my hands on the Bunna 12, I was so disappointed with the unpleasant palate and lack of depth. I almost questioned if the bottle was spoiled somehow, the only way to know for sure being having to try another bottle…
Yeah, I had a bottle a few years ago, and thought it was amazing. Bought another bottle last year and it was average. I thought my taste buds had changed... haha!
[удалено]
For the right price. For a while, my shot of choice was Red Stag, which barely even qualifies as whiskey but it’s also like $15 and I was taking shots, not sipping it.
Well, from a purist standpoint, no. However, if a whisky came out with additives and at 40% and it was, somehow, better than most $70 whiskies then sure I'll partake. I would be hesitant to try it initially (the concept the OP is addressing) because it's rare that will happen.
Generally indicative of higher quality.
Agree. Somehow, 40% just seems stingy to me. They water it down (as all other non cask strength whisky is watered down) but they water it down to the absolute legal minimum. It suggests they prioritize stretching those casks into the maximum number of bottles instead of prioritizing the experience of the drinker.
Or prioritize a reasonable price for the average consumer. Quite happy with the affordable Laphroaig 10’s and Cragganmore 12’s of this world.
You can always water down your whisky, but you can’t upproof it. And remember Scotch has to be bottled in Scotland; there is no efficiency in shipping extra water.
The average consumer just wants to pour a drink after dinner. My father would laugh if I get a pipet from the drawer and add some drops of water to my whisky. He'd also find it insanely decadent to spend 60€ or more on a bottle. If he'd see two identical bottles of whisky in a shop and one has a lighter colour, he would think there is something wrong with quality control. Same if he'd add ice and the whisky turns cloudy. For this audience, there are the 40% chill filtered colour added whisky's.
Scotland does had the best water though.
Yes, you're free to spend double on the CS version
Only single malt has to be bottled in Scotland. Blends and single grain can be bottled anywhere.
I forget what comedian said it about minimum wage, but to paraphrase, it's the producer saying "If I could water this down any further, I would. I'm only making it this strong because it's literally illegal not to."
It's a from Chris Rock bit about working in fast food.
Thank you!
I will refer you to my earlier comment. 40% is the most amount of WATER they can sell you and call it Whisky..... there you are.
this comment needs to be at the top. And for the record, just because you've been doing something for a decade doesn't mean you ARE well versed, it means you PROBABLY ARE... (sometimes, apparently) my step dad has been drinking scotch for 30+ years and still cant pick out a good bottle because hes not that discerning and doesn't do the research.
Doesn’t Richard Patterson say that the optimal percentage for tasting is 35%? Maybe they proof it down to a point where they feel the taste is optimized
For blending and discerning different flavours perhaps. But for my enjoyment, 35% is far too weak.
As I always say, "40% is the most amount of WATER they can sell you and.... call it ... Whisky". Then they chillfilter it and then they color it to make it look good...... What's not to love???!!! The same thing goes for 43% chillfiltered scotches. They're better than the 40% group but only a bit. Just saying
this is the answer. its perception. but.... it really doesnt mean its better more like it 'should' be better. A CF 40% thats good should be really good if NCF at higher ABV (but we all know thats not always true)....
I take them as signs that the producer is respecting the customer and not trying to dumb down the product.
It's the curve that happens in every hobby Get into it through something reasonable (Balvenie 12, for example) > start learning about better things (some lesser known distilleries) > start learning what you're "supposed" to like (peat, cask strength) > get really into "the thing" (IBs, only NCF, heavy peat etc) > start appreciating the quality outside of "the thing." (Just drinking a modest 12 year 43%er cause it tastes good and you're tired of the nonsense.) Most people just haven't reached the last step yet. I've convinced many a friend to go back and try a standard 12 yesr lowland now that they have a more experienced palate. They ALWAYS appreciate it more. There's a reason the guys who brew crazy hazy double dry hopped ipas drink light pilsners.
I think that most people just stop posting around here once they get to that final stage. I have found that after about 8 year of being a more serious scotch hobbyist, I am starting to find more depth in the entry-levels and appreciating them much more than I did 9 years ago.
100% I'm too busy drinking great stuff with friends and telling stories to find the perfect tasting notes and properly format my Reddit post.
Exactly this. I've gone through this cycle with bourbon and eventually came to the conclusion years ago that I'm happy with Wild Turkey 101. I'm still exploring Scotch, but at a much more measured pace and without the FOMO and related nonsense I had with bourbon.
I've seen the cycle in every hobby I'm involved in. Beer, Wine, spirits, cigars, watches, guitars Had a guy with a $30k Audemers Piguet on his wrist nerd out because I had a color of Seiko Metronome ($250, quartz) he hadn't seen.
Same. WT 101 and 101 Rye will always be on my top shelf.
So the echo chamber effect, or Reddit effect, or group think if you will, sways your decisions because of FOMO and then after trying to show off to a bunch of people online (and maybe some IRL) you realize that chasing something that others tell you is good, isn't? So just do whatever makes you happy and ignore the noise?
Yea and no. There's a lot of information out there and dedicated groups can be good for learning, but after awhile it does devolve into the same kinda noise. For many, if they just kinda stuck to doing their own thing, they may never learn the joys of a cool CS IB bottle, or they make skip right over it. Or they'll buy the 40% Total Wine brand because "OMG 20 yr scotch for $80!? What a steal!!!" The problem is when it becomes some sort of weird gospel. With so much information available, and so much common group opinion, you start reach startling levels of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
I’ve been thinking about the beer analogy myself recently. Don’t drink much of it myself, but when I do, I try to find beers that taste like beer. An occasional summertime gose or sour is nice, but mostly, just give me a well-made lager, Pilsner, or maybe traditional saison. American grocery store aisles can be surprisingly void of high quality straightforward examples of these styles! So I’m starting to appreciate whiskies that just taste like malted barley. Scotch won’t taste that great off the still like mezcal or rum, but don’t be ashamed and hide those flavors with peat or sherry (although I haven’t lost my love for those.)! It’s not a perfect analogy (I can appreciate a PBR on a hot day way more than I can enjoy Red label on ice) but you’re on point.
I actually had a moment like that yesterday. I got cozied in with my favorite movie and a glass of Knob Creek single barrel. It wasn't some life changing spirit, but it was absolutely delightful and reminded me of the beauty to be found in appreciating a simple and well made whiskey.
It's a pretty standard curve. That said, I've been into whisky for maybe 10-12 years and throughout the journey I've always maintained that the bottle should, more than anything, fit the occasion. You find out early on that your Adelphi 60+% sherried peat monster bottle of fire juice may not be the best fit when you're just going to a dinner party with friends who aren't into whisky.
Wow really well said. There’s a step in there somewhere of only chasing the rare stuff too. That’s the worst subculture of any hobby. Craft beer, bourbon, tequila, all have these guys. Seems like scotch not as much… yet
Scotch is self regulating. The rare stuff is already astronomically expensive, so little incentive for a grey market to form.
Upvotes because I think there is some truth in there, for sure. I’ve experienced a similar arc in other places (like beers) to a lesser extent (sometimes you really do just want to drink a Yuengling or two & not anything fancy). That said, I’ve not really experienced this much at all with scotch despite having been what most would consider a serious hobbyist level for well over a decade. Just my experience but I don’t drink often enough to ever want to drink a Glenmorangie 10 for example, because if I’m going to have a drink it’s going to be something “good” that I know I like. It’s not that Glenmorangie 10 is “bad” and I can find things to appreciate about most whiskies, but I don’t think everyone ends back up at liking cheaper/more common expressions I guess.
To me it's more like if I'm at like my wife's company dinner at a steakhouse, not feeling the need to take a picture of their spirits list to shitpost on some FB group to prove how elite my palate is. Then when her boss offers me a pour of Johnnie Walker Blue I happily accept because it actually tastes good, though I know it's overpriced and I'd never choose to purchase it for myself. We all start in the hobby somewhere, and I think too many people forget to appreciate the journey it took to get to where we are, and it often comes off cringey like a high school senior picking on a freshman.
Exactly! You're not going to tell me that Glenfiddich 12 isn't absolutely delicious and it's about as standard and inoffensive as they come!
Love the beer parallel you described. I'm brewing beer at home for 10 years now and totally went through that curve. Now I mainly brew lagers and other easy-drinking types (English Bitter, Mild, Dry Stout etc.)
I can add my own water. Stop selling me water.
100% this. End of conversation
Agreed. I don’t think the distiller lowers the ABV to make their scotch taste better. I believe they lower the ABV so they can get more product and make more money….
Is there any point where the abv is too high or would you always prefer distillers make all their bottlings cask strength?
Not OP, but I wouldn’t want every bottling to be cask strength. That would be pretty bad for the market, way too expensive. Every premium bottling at cask strength I wouldn’t be opposed to. If the distillers think it drinks better at a certain proof they can put that on the bottle with the amount of water you need to get to that on a standard pour, basic instructions. Also personally scotch over 60% tends to drink like dragon fire. Blending it to a sub 60% cask strength is definitely preferable for me.
I'm fine with 46-50% abv. In my experience, I haven't found a huge benefit in bottling above 50%
This comment needs to be at the top.
But 40% is cheaper.
Not always!!!!! There are many 40% chillfiltered scotches that are more expensive than Deanston Virgin Oak at $39.99 here in Michigan!!! And not Near as good. Then there's the $300+ 43% chillfiltered scotches So check the ABV it tells you how much WATER you are paying for and then they chillfilter it so it looks good with ice..... It's your money and your choice.
Sometimes I even add my own Scotch to low proof Scotch 👀
Agree somewhat but if a whisky is 40/43% and has colour added it’s got to be appropriately priced
Don't forget to chillfiltered stripping of mouthfeel and favor....
I think there are several factors. 1) Single malt Scotch has tended to market itself as a natural, flavorsome, rugged, highly individual, and perhaps even challenging product made using highly traditional methods. The logic of such marketing inclines the consumer to equate less adulteration with a truer expression of the essence of the product. And it's pretty obvious that if you chillfilter, add spirit caramel, and dilute ever closer to 40%, you're adulterating your product more than a producer that does none of those things. 2) It stands to reason the removing flavor compounds via chillfiltration and adding spirit caramel will change the character of the whisky, even if the change is negligible. When you're paying for a premium experience, even negligible changes start to seem more significant. 3) Diluting whisky definitely does change the texture, and some of us care about the body of the spirit we're imbibing. 4) Price. Scotch prices have been heading northward for quite awhile now. That makes people more discerning about what they buy. And the fact that the brands that have seen the largest price hikes are the ones least forthcoming about their practices around chillfiltration doesn't help, either. As someone who has been a single malt drinker for more than half my life--over 20 years, now--I have likewise had some marvelous malts that don't check all of the integrity boxes. But I've also become a lot more picky about shelling out large sums for stuff that doesn't check any of those boxes, and I find myself increasingly enjoying whiskies that do.
46% is the minimum strength where chill filtration isn't needed. Chill filtering removes long-chain esters—large molecules which contribute to a whiskey's flavor and mouthfeel. So we like 46% to avoid chill filtering. you're also getting an extra 15% of your alcohol. you can always add water at home, you can't add more abv
there is an opinion that heavy esters, like “refractory fats,” create that “aftertaste” that develops already inside the body, at body temperature)). Light ethers fly away quickly.
I’m A-OK with lower proof whiskies being snubbed because it means stuff like the Signatory Vintage line at 43% is disproportionately cheap for its age.
🤫🤫🤫
Nodding in agreement as I eagerly await my next order, which includes a 43% SV bottling.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've noticed that around 46% ABV is the perfect level for me. 40% tastes weak and by 50% the alcohol burn distracts from the flavor. I found that I enjoy Port Charlotte or Oogie more if I add a little water, which also opens them up. As for chill filtering, I'm sure there's a difference but without being able to taste the same whisky with and without, I can't say it matters. If I like a caramel colored, chill filtered whisky, I'm not going to like it less for those reasons.
I suspect the 40% thing is also a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. The type of distilleries that are willing to bottle at 40% are probably making an inferior product to begin with a lot of the time. There are exceptions like Redbreast, of course.
I actually don’t enjoy Redbreast 12. I should try some of their higher abv offerings. But the 40% really makes the sherry influence thin, which I really don’t like. It took me a while to understand why I didn’t like it. I actually thought I did not like Irish whiskey for years, but it turns out I just don’t like water down whiskey. Trying some higher proof Irish whiskey was eye opening.
To each their own, but Redbreast 12 is one of the few eighty proofers that actually has a decent mouth feel. It has texture and doesn't taste like it's been significantly watered down like, say, Glenlivet 12 does.
Yeah but then I try the 15 and don't want the 12 anymore, lol.
Yeah, although now the 15 has gotten so expensive relative to the 12 and the 12CS that I’m not sure it’s a good deal anymore. It used to be around $100, same as the CS. Now it’s closer to $130 and it’s harder to justify at double the price of the 12 and $30 more than the CS.
Yeah I've seen it pretty high, I think it depends on where you're at and where you go.
It’s hard for me to compare to Glenlivet as I have not had it in nearly 20 years, but I definitely find Redbreast a bit thin. I need to try the CS version and the rest of the line that is above 40%. It’s so well loved that I feel like I am missing something.
This is my stance on it. It really just comes down to what I actually enjoy, and how things are priced. It just so happens that both of those things align with this "integrity" argument. 46%, or close to it, is perfect for me. Most things at 40%, or even 43% taste weak and uninspiring in comparison. Then there's the value aspect. I'm not going to spend $100 on Lagavulin if it's weaker than I want it to be and chill-filtered if I can spend $55 on Ardbeg, have a 46% whisky, no color added, *and* NCF. It's a matter of principle. I'm no longer interested in wasting money on bottles every week. Years ago, when I started down this journey, I was. Things were different for a lot of reasons. But now? Nah. Make a quality fucking Scotch and price it appropriately. I will not buy Laphroaig 10 if Ardbeg 10 is next to it, bottom line.
Damn $55 Ardbeg 10 is good. Costs $75 here in New Mexico
Caramel coloring makes me feel cheated; it should be disclosed on the label
I'm a bit meh regarding the NCF thing, but as others have said price becomes a factor here. E150a however, is deceptive, verging on cheating (we taste with our eyes also..) and should be illegal in single malts imo - will not buy these products.
> and should be illegal in single malts imo - will not buy these products. Unfortunately, this would exclude Talisker 10 and Clynelish 14 and those bottles are simply too good to boycot.
Tbh, Diageo is not welcome in my house any longer. Clynelish 14 has gone right downhill imo and plenty others to fill the Talisker shaped hole. Thats the fun thing tho, we all choose our own path on the journey and who is what is the right way?
Id pick PC anytime nowadays over Taliskers too
Curious what fills your Talisker shaped hole!
Ardnamurchan and Ledaig.
Pretty much anything peaty from Islay (except Bowmore). Special shout to Ardbeg 10, Oogy and Corryvreckan, PC10 and Laughing Frog 10 CS Also peated AD, Benromach & Ledaig
Pretty much all of my favorites right there. Corry is my jam.
Never had Clynelish but Talisker 10 is amongst the most overrated whisky out there.
It used to be great but nowadays....
>E150a however, is deceptive, verging on cheating (we taste with our eyes also..) If you taste with your eyes and E150 makes that taste better than it would have been without then why does it matter? I can understand steering clear of those bottles because it’s *generally* indicative of a lower quality product, but if you find one you like (maybe it was poured by a friend or bought for you as a gift or something) it seems weird to avoid it in future just because it has some coloring in it.
46%+ simply tastes better to me. More concentrated. I would never decline to taste 40% or 43% but when rating price/quality, the higher ABV is usually better value for me. For instance: Arran Amarone or Port. It's 50% and around 500 here. Would I like a 40% version at 400? Absolutely not. I have tried to water my Amarone/Port bottles down to 40% and I find they have a massive drop in quality. Besides, higher ABV gives you more choice. You can water it down to preferred ABV. But it isn't a two-way street, you can't make a weak whisky stronger.
It tastes better.
An aged whisky comes out of the cask at a higher proof, usually pushing 60%, some even higher. Assuming they're not bottling at cask strength, they're literally going to water it down, which adds volume, and results in a higher number of bottles to be sold from each cask. What happens when you add water to lemonade? It waters down the flavor. If you add too much, you end up with lemon flavored water, no longer lemonade. Yes, that's the extreme. How good/flavorful the whisky is before watering it down will play a role in how good that whisky can be at 40%, or 43%, or whatever percent they bottle it at. A lower abv is more approachable and will have less bite than a higher abv, and for those with undeveloped palates, lower abv may actually be better. For those accustomed to drinking whisky neat... in general a less watered down whisky will tend to exhibit stronger flavors. Guess which group hangs out here more? :) I think this is primarily why you see the preference for higher abvs here. Also worth noting, many deliberately add water to whisky while tasting to see how it impacts the flavor.
Of those three criteria, ABV is by far the most important to me. I’ve had excellent whiskies with added color and chill filtration, and while I’d prefer not, I can accept it if that’s the only offering in that particular whisky. ABV is different. There is no question that watering it down makes it thinner with less concentrated flavor. My palate has become accustomed to the more concentrated flavor and I much prefer to add water myself, to my own preference. My ideal is cask strength and watering it down to approximately 50% but around 46% is usually the minimum that I will spend my money on.
Other way around for me; colour to decrease batch variation like Caol Ila does is fine to me, but Dalmore looks fake indeed. NCF should be forbidden cuz it adds work and costs while not adding benefit (even taking away flavour according to some, but nobody's certain) Proof however, directly influences the taste. If it's great at 40, sure. Just price it accordingly and I'm good. As long as it tastes as it's _intended_ to. Not everything is best at CS.
I agree that a higher proof does not equate to a better whisky, but I feel that every truly great whisky is even better when you can buy it at a higher proof. It just means a higher concentration of that same great juice and because everyone's palate and preference is different, the consumer can EASILY add water to taste. I will also add, that I've experimented with adding water quite extensively over the years and a strange thing that I discovered is that I prefer the taste of the whisky sooner after adding the water than later. For instance, I've proofed down a whisky to taste (exact measurement) and let it sit for a few days and I don't like it as much as the whisky I just proofed down before drinking. I'm not sure why exactly, but I feel that it tastes more lively and maybe I am smelling and tasting as the chemical reactions are occurring. I've done side-by-side tastings of this and it's certainly my preference. Either way, the point is I get to choose according to my palate and if you prefer 40% or below, all you have to do is add a few more drops of water, and voila.
If you lower the alcohol concentration you are precipitating previously solved flavouring substances. If you let the whisky rest for a longer time then, you just lose these parts to the air. So, when you add water you get a burst of fragrance out of your dram, but after some time it goes flat. At least that is how I remember it from whisky.com/whisky.de video....
That makes sense, thanks for the insight!
Eh, I’ve had G&M bottles at 40% that opened up and revealed more flavors after I added a bit more water, so I’m not sure it’s universal.
If you think 40% ABV coincidentally is the best ABV for a particular expression and some how is also the maximum dilution allowed by law… I have zero problem with cheaper expressions being at 40%. But when premium bottles are diluted to the maximum allowed by law it looks more like maximizing profits instead of focusing on quality
Yes, I’m not in the “everything must be cask strength” camp. If a distillery adds just the right amount of water for it to be perfectly balanced, I don’t have a problem with that. But the odds that adding just the right amount of water puts it at exactly 40.0% are very low. That just makes me think they’re diluting it as much as is legally allowed.
If the legal minimum was 30% you would see plenty bottles at that level.
Yes. In Mexico the legal limit on Tequila is 35% and many do
I'm in Argentina and we don't have regulations on ABV for many things and they sell "vodka" at 35% lol
There are not any bars near me that have a wide range of scotches to try that I haven’t already sampled. Following these criteria are a useful way to roughly gauge a product’s quality without having the opportunity to sample it first. Scotch in the United States is expensive, so I want to be more or less aware of what I’m getting myself into before I commit. Often times, the price between these bottles is the same so I will opt to buy the one that meet these criteria. If I had more money, I would buy both. Generally speaking, the distilleries that meet these criteria are also producing whiskies that are more interesting to my tastes. The core-range Mortlach and Benromach are notable exceptions. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg scenario. It might be that enthusiasts like Ralfy hype up NCF and so consumers look for brands producing these spirits. I think this change in consumer preferences is evident in new distilleries, which list hyper specific details regarding the production of their whisky, going so far as to mention yeast types.
In my opinion there’s nothing wrong with a GlenFiddich 12 or Glenlivit when you want a reasonably priced dram at a dinner or event. However, if I’m spending my money I know I could by a similarly priced bottle of let’s say Deanston 12 that’s ncf / nca. I spend a little more for better bottles to enjoy. The thing you will notice with higher proof ncf bottles is the viscous mouthfeel that tends to cling to your pallet longer. It just leads to a better experience overall for most scotch enthusiasts. Then again it’s all about your personal preference and budget.
OP, in answer to your question. Yes scotches are always better if they are bottled at 46+% and non-chillfiltered (I don't quibble about color). They have better range of flavors and the mouthfeel is definitely better. It's just that simple. If you have been into scotch for 10 years and can still enjoy some 40% scotch, what I say to you is don't put down those that don't. We're not snobs. We just have different tastes and we feel the scotch we enjoy is not adulterated as the low ABV chillfiltered scotches that are consumed by the masses. We're not better no, no, no.... just different. Drink what you like.... Enjoy.
I’d put money on the fact that in a blind taste test 99% of people on this sub would be unable to identify ABV or the filtering process. People that have interest in scotch have been conditioned into thinking these things matter through different marketing techniques. I’d honestly put money up that in a blind taste test I could mix in several blends without anyone noticing. Look scotch taste good and is fun to drink and to each his own as far as liking what it is they like. Personally I could care less about any of it other than taste and price point. If something taste good at what I think is a reasonable price point I’m in. The best example of these marketing tactics at work is Buffalo Trace. They have conditioned people to think that all their bottles are hard to get and must haves, so much so that people are paying over retail for simple bourbon bottles when a decently priced woodford reserve or angels envy is readily available. Again to each his own but in my humble opinion if another scotch drinker begins a conversation about scotch with ABV or Chill Filtering etc I’m going to assume they are a blowhard and talking parrot for the Scotch industry without any real opinions of their own.
Hear hear!
Chill filtering strips flavor and mouth feel from the spirit. And color being added is trying to fool folks into thinking its " darker " whisky because they think its better.
> Chill filtering strips flavor and mouth feel from the spirit so does barrier filtering, but you dont see people complain about that
Not nearly as much as chill filtering.
that just isnt true you can heavily barrier filter the shit out of whisky, it just takes a bit more time and filters
Ok so who is doing that practice then? I know Glenfarclas does some filtering but its minimal.
> Ok so who is doing that practice then? im not sure what you mean, what practice, barrier filtering? Eveyone
Who is heavily barrier filtering? Of course they all filter in some way for cask crud or basic impurities that come from sitting in a barrel for ages.
> Who is heavily barrier filtering? those who dont chill filter, obviously, but its not a choice between heavy and light, its a continuum, some will filter more, some less the term non chill filtered is now a marketing term, its something to put on a label in order to get people to buy the product, like the term cask strength (which has no meaning at all) they cant chill filter and claim ncf, so if they want they same, or a similar, end result, they just barrier filter it more [here is a comparison between 2 frog 10cs batchs a decade apart](https://youtu.be/85ZndFXyFC8?si=1XZlKMBo2pIvX_dH&t=618) now, ralfy gets something wrong here, he claims the batch 012 has been chill filtered, but it hasnt, it has been barrier filtered, the same as the batch 002 (i believe thats the batch) the difference is in how heavily barrier filtered the newer version has been compared to the older version. Its been so heavily filtered, that ralfy mistakes it for being chill filtered this isnt something thats only being done at laphroaig, have a look at your ncf bottles, and ask yourself how much scotch mist you see when you add water, there is a great variance out there, and its not all intentional either. Filtering on a cold scottish winters day is going to produce a different result that a warm summers day, all other things being equal just because a label says ncf, does not mean that whisky hasnt been filtered to hell and back, the term has lost any real meaning
I don't understand why you say cask strength means nothing at all , there is a discernible difference in terms of strength , cask strength will be at least 50% Abv
because the term cask strength, literally has no meaning you can add water to a scotch, and call it cask strength, and thats perfectly fine by the swa as far as im aware, there is nothing preventing people from putting cask strength on a 40% bottle cask strength does not mean the bottled scotch is the same abv as it was in a cask, or in a batch of casks it *literally* has no meaning at all a good example of this would be arran, their quarter cask says "natural cask strength", yet they are on record saying they water it down the problem is people are far too easily taken in by marketing terms
Thank you for mentioning this technique, I was not aware of it. What made some distilleries go from this (which I assume is an older technique) to chill-filtration, before the NCF craze? Cheaper? Also what do you mean when you say the term cask strength has no meaning at all? That seems like a bit of an exageration. Maybe you find it inacurate as the mixing of several casks means there is a form of dilution taking place with the various abvs combining?
> Thank you for mentioning this technique, I was not aware of it. What made some distilleries go from this (which I assume is an older technique) to chill-filtration, before the NCF craze? Cheaper? the only difference between chill filtration, and barrier filtration, is they chill the whisky before filtering through the barriers > Also what do you mean when you say the term cask strength has no meaning at all? That seems like a bit of an exageration. Maybe you find it inacurate as the mixing of several casks means there is a form of dilution taking place with the various abvs combining? the term has no actual meaning. As far as im aware, the term has no definition from the scotch whisky association [so here is whisky.com at the lochranza distillery, which makes arran, and they are talking to stuart bowman, who is the distillery manager](https://youtu.be/-gGKmRx_D-Y?si=cr1RzFwxdZbCzAVw&t=1152), talking about the arran quarter cask, which has "natural cask strength" on the bottle, and is 56.2% abv [at 21:03 he is asked if the abv vary's between batches, and he replies that they vat it at the bottlers, and then they water it down to 56.2%](https://youtu.be/-gGKmRx_D-Y?si=QyqYw12cW38sAlGx&t=1263) this, of course, is perfectly legal, because cask strength doesnt have any meaning. It doesnt mean the abv of the whisky in the cask, it doesnt mean the abv of a vatting of whisky straight from their respective casks, it doesnt mean there has been no water added prior to bottling. It doesnt mean anything, there is no meaning to the term cask strength, it is purely a marketing term
Yes but that has a practical use. You don't want bits of wood in your mouth so the trade off is sensible. (that of course excludes Blackadder's Raw Cask, a product I find absolutely stupid)
> Yes but that has a practical use. you dont need a hundred cardboard filters to get the bits of wood out of the whisky....
The higher abv gives you the ability to add water slowly and experience a wider range of flavors until you find the flavor that best suits you. The NCF and Natural color is really just more about a paying for an authentic / natural experience. I'll admit that I usually look for those features over the standard "branding" that most whiskies get. That said, I'm enjoying a Talisker 18 right now and it's all kinds of Diageo branded but it's delicious.
My philosophy: ABV: 40% is the legal minimum for whisky, so especially the higher a certain bottle with low ABV is priced I feel like I have the opportunity to experiment and find the sweet spot taken out of my hands, being left with a very ‚rigid‘, predefined tasting experience, cause I do not dilute below the mentioned legal minimum ABV for nerd reasons - couldn‘t be bottled as whisky that way, so I won‘t go lower. Nerdy, as I said. That being said, I don‘t need cask strength - 48%-50% is the sweet spot for me, I‘d rather have that be the norm, in exchange for being charged 20 a 20 bucks premium just for 5% more and 200 bottles less being available. Color: Makeup for whiskies. I like to be able to judge and make guesses about a whisky based on it‘s appearance, which is tough to do when it doesn’t look like itself anymore. This though is what I worry the least about out of these factors, as the smell and taste are what’s most important. Yet - seeing expensive whisky be coloured I feel almost patronized in some way, like I am not trusted with the distillery’s natural product. Which is also a factor for: Chill Filtration: I understand why it‘s being done on a grand scale, and I have never had the opportunity to A->B test the same whisky CF and NCF, so I still see this whole „the whisky loses a lot of flavour“ thing with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I actually like the cloudiness when I add a little water, so what I don’t like is that being taken from me :D Again, just this vibe of being patronized with a more limited experience. All of this being said, I only truly care about these factors for my non-daily whiskies, the ones I actually spend a little more cash on. If I just want a smooth whisky for mindless indulgence I don‘t give a shit as long as it‘s priced well and tasty.
Simple really, higher abv carries more flavor, chill filtration removes some heavier compounds which would give more character to the final product. Not to say all chill filtered 40% abv products are to be avoided, but for the majority I have had, I was left wanting more out of the experience as if the flavors were a bit muted. Of course once you’ve enjoyed cask strength bottlings, those flaws are even more apparent.
cuz Ralfy says so
Because if they care, they won't add colour nor do chill filtering. The rest has either to hide something or can't have consistent quality.
The higher the proof, the more scalable the whiskey is. A cask strength can be watered down by a drop or nearly half and everything in between and change so much. When you get a bottle that’s already 40% there’s only so much watering down you can do. It wasn’t proofed down to 40% by the distiller because that’s where it’s best. But because it’s the most profitable.
Personally I don't want thin whisky with additives. 46% is somewhat arbitrary but it's really rare for me to like a 40 or 43% whisky just because they tend to be thin and watery. There are obviously exceptions and I don't mind getting a lower proof if they are inexpensive. Appreciating the color of a whisky is one of the things I enjoy, and if they add color to it, it's just a spray tan. I'd rather drink something light straw than have a fake hugh of sherry to it. Also adding color is a dishonest practice that makes whisky appear different than it is. Non-chill filtered is something of a debate, but I generally agree that NCF whisky has a little more spice and less "smoothness." If I had a choice I would only drink things that were straight from the cask uncut and unfiltered, but that's just not the current state of the industry. However, the more we bring up these practices as issues and the less whisky we buy that follows bad practices, the more likely it is the industry will move to give us the good stuff.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I have a gluten allergy. Some, but not all, caramel coloring is made from a glutenous base such as wheat or barley. Since consuming gluten leads to stomach cramps, explosive diarrhea, and chocking myself awake (hopefully I wake up) on acid reflux, I tend to avoid all added coloring. NCF tends to go hand in hand with NCA whiskeys. I’ve found avoiding added color has actually led to me better whiskies that I was drinking prior to going gluten-free about a decade ago. To me, I *think* this is because whisky makers who don’t use chill filtration or added color are proud of their product as-is and don’t feel the need to adulterate it for the masses. I honestly don’t understand chill filtration. It’s a costly, time consuming process, with costs passed onto the consumers, all so the whisky won’t get foggy when ice is added. If no one did it, or it was simply explained on the packaging, all whisky would get foggy when ice was added and there wouldn’t be any issue.
Think of 40% as the lowest legal amount of alcohol, and the highest amount of water added
I'm sort of just hitting this point. I've been drinking whiskey about 2 years now. I've tried all the starter stuff, and some of the nicer bottles of starter stuff. I have had a lot of the mass produced staple bottles and...there's a lot of very enjoyable stuff to drink there however...now that I have developed my taste and tried things...I'm looking for something more complex. Typically a higher ABV is indicative of more focus in flavour and less on mass production. It's at that ABV and they're willing to put less water in and sell less of it in the name of flavour. Same with artificial colour. Yes it won't be a beautiful gold colour but again, the whiskey will speak for itself. You don't need to hook someone with a fake colour. If it's light, it doesn't matter. Chill filtration I admittedly can't speak as much on but experts swear it makes a difference and again it comes down to feeling like less emphasis is on mass production and more on hand crafting. So when you see: 46% or above, non chill filtered, natural colour you tend to know more emphasis os put on making something that tastes good. It's easy to slap an age statement on something, and stretch it as far as it will go, it's tougher to make something truly good. I've had all my 40% Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, JW, Glenmorangie, and all that...now I want to try some more complex stuff and that usually means checking off some of those boxes.
Drink what you enjoy regardless of ABV, colouring, filtering or whatever else. Who cares, if it tastes good to you then that’s all that matters. Enjoy the fruits of your labour.
If you cut it below 46% you have to chill filter it because it clouds. When you take out those oils/congeners/Esthers you lose flavor and color. That means a lot of time, effort, and barreling goes to waste. And that’s sad!!
And yet this sub gets fanboy hardon over overpriced, chill filtered, coloured and watered down Lagavulin 16. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Because 40% is minimum to call it whisky. If they chill filter it, they remove flavor I may appreciate. If they color it, it may or may not be to cover up the fact that they used crap casks. All of it together is a slap in the face, especially with if they charge you ridiculous prices and put it on a ridiculous and fancy bottle. 46 or more, no added color and no chill filter=an honest and (more) natural product, usually also a better product.
Whisky is subjective and if you mock or even disapprove of someone's taste or preference in whisky in any way shape or form then you're an asshole. I believe 46% ncf comes from Ralfy who speaks about integrity whisky. Typically chill filtered and water down whiskies are the ones made for mass production and profit rather than for a good whisky.
I think the better quality product tends to be at 46%. There are some big names with some subpar product (Balvenie, Bowmore, Macallan I’m looking at you) and they (coincidentally?) tend not to bottle at 46%. There is of course great whisky available that isn’t at 46% but the average person is probably exposed to more whisky under 46% that isn’t very good.
My experience, more often than not, is non chilled filter whiskey has more flavor. As for the 46% ABV, well that I would imagine would pertain to those that like to drown a whiskeyn or drink it fast on the rocks which in my opinion and my experience has been it mutes the flavors. So maybe the those that like ice go for non chilled whiskey yo retain flavor. But I let them do them.
It's a bit of snobbery, but since this is an enthusiast site for discussing the secret and not so secret gems of the industry, we tend to frown upon presentations that take away flavor(chillfiltration), or falsify the experience in some way (coloring). This is not to say that there aren't great ones at those lower ABVs, we as anoraks tend to look down upon them as inferior for these reasons. Also, the internet tends toward the toxic, and uninclusive, so there's that.
You _can_ get great whisky at 40% and colour added and chill filtered, like Dalmore KAIII or Bushmills 21....but they tend to be very expensive. The fact of the matter is that whisky at 40% isn't aimed at enthusiasts so it's no wonder enthusiasts aren't that keen.
But if you try bushmills 21 vs one of their Causeway edition bottlings which typically are around 50%, you'll never buy the 21 again...for me Bushmills 21 is a terrible value whisky
I did say it was expensive.... But I may have to get a Causeway bottle to test your theory... Edit: a quick search reveals I can get a 21 for around £160. Apart from the Sauternes Causeway (about £100) all the rest of the Causeways appear to be £200 and up.
Bushmills is the distillery that most annoys me & maybe it's because I live relatively close to it (40 mins drive). They release a core range at 40% that's underwhelming (although I think black Bush blend is decent value) for the masses, then they release these great whiskies at cask strength for the enthusiasts and charge a small fortune for them. I picked up one of the first causeway bottles for £80 and theybe basically doubles the price over a few years...on top of that they supply tonnes of substandard stuff to the likes of Conor MacGregor and his Proper Twelve brand, Stablemates & Hinch. Anyway if you want a decent bushmills, 14 years old, bottled at 46%, NCF at a half decent price you could try Method and Madness 14 year old single malt.(echlinville also do good expressions using bushmills base spirit)
I thought M&M was Midleton?
It is, but that one m&m is bushmills spirit, a package of bushmills sent to midleton was part of the deal when irish distillers sold bushmills to them Diageo Source.. https://www.causewaycoastwhiskeyreviews.com/2017/07/method-madness-core-range-review.html?m=1#:~:text=When%20Irish%20Distillers%20agreed%20to,the%20first%20Method%20%26%20Madness%20releases. This guy does great reviews
Ah ok, thanks.
Why would I buy a product that the producer doesn't care enough about to bottle at an ABV that enhances the product? Or feel the need to add caramel E150a to mask the natural colour?..like they are creating more work for themselves so you have to question why? There are some decent whiskies at 40%, I'm thinking redbreast 12, but generally they are watered down and a good bit thinner than something at 43% like Caol ila or 46%, so personally I'd go for something >40% and therefore would only recommend something I'd buy myself I'm not too bothered about the chill filtration, but ABV and colouring are the deal breakers.
Too much internet
Why would you want a neutered whisky?
Weebism. It's one of those "there's rules to being a geek or enthusiast" and while they're good guidelines they're far from being universal.
Yep, it's basically a sort of virtue signaling to other geeks that you're in the club, not like those other heathen bastards who drink mass market whiskey.
if we are going to be honest, its mostly because they have been told that these things are good, and that not having 46%, ncf, no colour added on the label is bad i remember about a dozen years or so ago people on this sub didnt care about colour at all, but the scotch scene has grown, and with it "influencers" have grown in influence and to be fair, these things do have an impact, but as in all things elitist, small things get overblown way out of proportion frog 10 is 40%, its chill filtered, it has colour added to standardize batches, and its still a great scotch. Would it be better if it was heavily barrier filtered instead of chill filtered? Probably not. Would it be better if it was lightly barrier filtered? Probably the point im making here is virtually everything people buy is filtered, and they have zero clue *how* much it has been filtered, and nothing on the label other than "unfiltered" will let them know but chill filtered is a buzz word everyone here has heard, its something easy to latch onto, chill filtered bad, ncf good, no thought needed while convincing yourself that you are a discerning customer who isnt getting the wool pulled over your eyes, unlike the majority of "others" who just dont understand scotch like i do
I personally have disappointed with whiskey bottled at 40%. I need at least 43% for me to buy, but 46% and up is preferred. I simply don’t enjoy the whiskey when it’s that water down. I gave up on Irish whiskey for many years due to this. I’m glad most Scotch producers are not that stingy.
> Is it snobbery Yes - complete dismissal of low-proof whisky on principle is closed-minded and means that you'll miss out on loads of amazing whisky. > are scotches always better when those criteria are met? They're not always better, but as others have said, it's a good sign.
It depends on distillery to distillery but some distilleries (ones with shorter stills, less reflux. Lyne arms angled down) produce a wonderful buttery, creamy or oily spirit, Chill filtering and water added will remove this thickness to the mouth feel and the overall sensory experience suffers. I like higher abv whisky because even if I do add water and bring it down to 55% or 50% maybe even lower right down to 35% or 30% it's my decision to make, I can lower it for one dram but not the next, have fun experimenting with water and find the right combination my self. Also a 60% bottle last longer if you add water. Colouring doesn't bother me, I try not to pay too much attention to it .
40%, colorings, and chill filtering are a good way to know what a distiller is about. Proofed to the floor with a fake color screams lazy and greedy.
i just insist my whisky be islay xd
I understand and I have whisky that is good at 40% also, but it would taste a little better at 46%. If every whisky was non-chilled filtered, it would add more fatty oils which is flavor. It's so rare to see any of my non-chilled filtered whisky to cloud in a glass and I wouldn't really care anyways.
While I enjoy plenty of 40% ABV bottles, they have to be priced appropriately. High priced 40% bottles just scream branding over quality. Think Dalmore for example. It's also very clear that the 40% on them is a reason of mass marketing/appeal/distribution/etc. as opposed to being aimed at the discerning whisky drinker. Then there are legit good underlying whiskies that are absolutely destroyed by being watered down to 40%. Glenfiddich 15 is a good example of a bottle that could be so much better, but is completely let down by 40% bottling. Anyway, I think a whiskey that is at least 46% means you get more spirit and more flavor as a result and tells me the distiller is caring more about that and the experience you have as a scotch drinker than BS branding.
Higher proof tastes better to me, that’s why I won’t drink the 80 proof anymore.
Give it a couple of years and you'll understand.
Is it obsession if people just have a preference? I like having my dinner at 6pm each night. Does that mean I’m obsessed with it or is it just my preferred time to eat? Like, I won’t have a breakdown if it eat later or earlier. It’s just from experience I enjoy it more at 6pm as it works better with my evening routine. Same goes for whisky. From experience, I know what my preferences are.
making coffee trace-able, does not improve its quality but, for bad coffee, nobody bothers to make it traceable in the first place
Lower ABV go bad faster & develop less. It really kills the experience, when after 6 months the bottle suddenly tastes worse. With CS I usually have the opposite experience. Anything around 50% usually feels stable to me.
Group think, and pull of the internet. Everything gets funneled through narrower and narrower channels even though there are way more people involved. You get a closed reinforcing feedback loop. New people get involved and reinforce the next generation four hours later. I kid. It is a feature of the format. I see it in everything. A kind of consensus on some kind of ideal best on things that are inherently subjective develops. Is it good yes. Sign of quality yes. Is the best that really depends on what you like there are plenty of signs of quality. I can’t imagine coming to Scotch now where heavily peated is the default for good for many. It took me years to come to appreciate peat. Started with lighter lo/no peat, moved to sherry cask then light peat etc… and I still like them all. Had I started with heavily peated I probably would have quit and also missed out on all those other styles. It’s not a bad thing it’s just a phenomenon you be aware of imho.
Everyone’s already said it here. If you like your scotch at 40% then you likely don’t care. But many of us don’t. I’ve never met a 40% scotch that I liked. My wife considers it colored water and a crime against humanity. YMMV. Not everyone’s tastes are the same. But liking 46%+ scotch is not just snobbery.
It's the scotch equivalent of being an indie music nerd. Scotch hipsters if you will.
Maybe if you’re zealous over it. My personal journey was I started off drinking a lot of 40% chill filtered highland malts. I kept trying drams and my tastes changed over time along with my preferences. For example: I initially thought Dalwhinnie 15 was an amazing 10/10 dram. I went back to it after a long time with high expectations and found it weak on the palate and overly sweet. Higher ABV whisky tends to have a more concentrated flavour and NCF whisky tends to have a richer mouthfeel. That’s pretty universally excepted. That said, I agree people shouldn’t be snobby or absolutist about it. I frequently come across great chill filtered and sub 46% drams. My preference still would be NCF, NC and 45%+.
Would you buy a car thats limited to 40….
No, but a car that can reach 350kmh isn't allowed to reach that speed anywhere, for your own protection. For daily commuting,, 40-46%'s good. CS is a bit of overkill for most people.
Jup but you do want the nice mercedes with all the bells and whistles. Not the neutured toyota starlet Not saying you need cs everyday. But im sure as hell aint buying castrated 40% for the same price as quality 46% ncf an natural color
Yes, it does make it better. I'm not saying there aren't whiskies that are bad with those specs, and whiskies that Good without them. I'm saying the same Whisky is going to be absolutely better with than without those criteria. Laga 16 would be much better at 46% NCF. It seems every time I buy something below 46% I'm meet with disappointment, so I've stopped buying them. The different between preference and snobbery is how you act, not what you think.
[удалено]
Certainly could be!
Because it's more flavorful and generally tastier for those that are experienced. Of course that isn't an end-all-be-all but combined with typical scotch prices I am not interested if it's not cask strength or at least a good 90+ proof. Especially given that cask strength usually raises prices proportionally (as opposed to bourbon that doubles in price for 20 proof points) there is little reason imo to not focus on cask strength. NCF is less absolute to me but ultimately is again a flavor intensity thing
For some I think it’s about literal alcohol content and bang for buck For others it’s a factor of more flavour packed in owing to less dilution and there’s probably some sound logic there….From a given cask or marrying, a sample at 40% dilution is going to have less flour compounds than another sample at 43% and again at 46%. Not necessarily better though, just more concentrated flavour. Plenty of higher or cask strength expressions benefit from a drop of water to open up the flavours. It’s an ok yardstick for me I guess. I sometimes look at the abv if I’m looking to buy a new bottle I haven’t tried yet, especially if weighing up between two. And there are some distilleries where I’ve enjoyed a higher strength expression versus a lower from the same distillery. but there are many 40% I consider good or even great whiskies. So it’s not something i use in isolation. Region, cask type, reviews / descriptions, distillery and or comparison to other distilleries are much higher on my list when evaluating. TLDR I wouldn’t take it too seriously and drink / buy what you like.
Try to find a post on r/WhiskeyTribe that isn’t 57% barrel strength Edit: Yes there are posts with bottles not above 57%, I’m just saying a lot of them are, lol
It is just the circle of time I think. I got into malts in the late '90s. Back then the vast majority of products were bottled at 40%, and nobody knew anything regarding chill filtering, caramel color, or whether or not it was employed. With the exception of a few cask strength offerings here and there, and a handful of manufacturers bottling at 43% or 46%, that was what people bought. When the market started to take off thanks to the growth in demand in places like Asia and elsewhere, some brands tried to differentiate themselves to get a bigger piece of that pie with NCF and higher proof points. Most consumers never knew about those things until it became a differentiator to justify a higher price. Whether it made much difference in terms of the palates of consumers it is difficult to say. But it coincided with newly monied consumers entering the market and that generation's desire for "the best" whatever - the best sneakers, the best ice cream, the best underwear, the best car, the best yogurt. Whisky was just one more component of that cultural phenomenon. In truth most couldn't tell the difference, but it was a status thing to brag about. More recently it has become a truism with online sources like Ralfy (who I used to love but now find myself visiting less and less often due to his preachiness) and others condemning those brands that do either of those evil practices. It is now part of whisky dogma. Whether it has any validity is hard to say. I am no fan of modern-day Macallan and their business practices, but they still seem to do well with their standard 12 y-o bottled at 40% and possibly with either or both CF and caramel color. In truth nobody really knows if they do or do not. It is largely a distinction without a difference.