• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

R

Rumpel

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
43,042
Reaction score
9,278
Location
Schwarzwald = Black Forest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
 
Rumpel said:
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Click to expand...

You sure do manage to post some head-shakers.........
 
Rumpel said:
I do enjoy Blended Whisky as well.

For example: Tullamore Dew! :peace
Click to expand...

Blended whiskies are for the peons. Now, pass the Johnny Walker.

The allure of single malts, or for that matter single barrels, is the expense. And after 4 or 5 shots who the hell can honestly taste the difference, or even care what they are drinking?

"Careful, don't spill any of that precious Tennessee sipping mash!"

"Hell you say! I could swear I was downing shots of Jack all night. Why am I talking to two of you?"
 
Rumpel said:
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it must be. They both appeal to overlapping fanciers. Single malts tend to be more distinct, for very obvious distinctive reasons. Blendeds target a slightly different usage, often looking to reproduce a consistency not available in Single, and more prone to be used in cocktails and mixed drinks.

I, for one, would never pour a peaty Islay into Ginger Ale, but wouldn't hesitate to make a Rye and Ginger with Bulleit 95 - just as an example.
 
MamboDervish said:
I don't know why it must be. They both appeal to overlapping fanciers. Single malts tend to be more distinct, for very obvious distinctive reasons. Blendeds target a slightly different usage, often looking to reproduce a consistency not available in Single, and more prone to be used in cocktails and mixed drinks.

I, for one, would never pour a peaty Islay into Ginger Ale, but wouldn't hesitate to make a Rye and Ginger with Bulleit 95 - just as an example.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
And I suspect that many of those "Single Malt" Shouters have no idea about Whisky - but have heard from some pampered snob with too much money that you must say "Single Malt only" to pass yourself off as a Connaisseur.

It all depends!
 
"Single Malt only" lovers are like those terrible snobbish snobs who pretend that they never drink anything but the most expensive French wine every day.

Und nothing less than Château Pétrus.
 
Rumpel said:
"Single Malt only" lovers are like those terrible snobbish snobs who pretend that they never drink anything but the most expensive French wine every day.

Und nothing less than Château Pétrus.
Click to expand...

When it comes to snobbery, it's no different in the world of art, antiques . . . . or just possessions in general. Some people actually identify themselves by what they own. I have occasionally wondered what would happen if they suddenly lost everything they owned in a fire. Would they simply cease to exist without having what they once owned to buttress their identify? Some people's possessions make them a mile wide, but their insecurities show they're only a millimeter deep.
 
In the case of wines, an "assemblage" or a "cuvée" may be often better than a single grape wine.

The same way, a blended whisky could be better than a single malt whisky.

It all depends.
 
May I ask again:

Just as a cuvée may be better than a single-grape-wine - why can't a blended whisky not also be better than a single malt in some cases?
 
Rumpel said:
"Single Malt only" lovers are like those terrible snobbish snobs who pretend that they never drink anything but the most expensive French wine every day.

Und nothing less than Château Pétrus.
Click to expand...

Close... but I'm more a Saint-Émilion man myself. *LOL*

I think it boils down and what you're willing to pay a premium for.... there is nothing wrong with a blended whiskey. But if the product of one particular region appeals to you - if it has the taste you're looking for - and you don't mind paying a premium for it, then why not? It doesn't apply to all whiskeys, either.... I actually prefer Bourbon to Scotch, but I've never found a big difference between an expensive Bourbon and a mid-range one. I call it the "Maker's line"... anything more expensive than Maker's Mark isn't any better, and anything cheaper just isn't as good. When I drink Scotch, though, I find a big difference between the various regions.

But I'm the same way with coffee... has to be Kenya AA. Nothing else compares for me.
 
I seems to be like this:

Better blended Whisky could be made - but people would not pay for it, as they expect blended Whisky to be cheaper than single malts.
 
Rumpel said:
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Click to expand...

1)The price point of snobs.

2) The lower quality story to tell as you drink it.
 
It's the difference between filet and sirloin. Both are good, when prepared and presented in a manner that highlights their strengths. I like a flat iron steak as much as a tomahawk, they're just different.

I prefer to sip a good single malt to enjoy the complexity and notes; no different from wines or cognac. It's not a snob thing, it's like a foodie who knows where to get the best wings, fries, cheesesteaks, or whatever. There's more out there than Crown, Seven, and Jack.
 
Schism said:
I prefer to sip a good single malt to enjoy the complexity and notes; no different from wines or cognac. It's not a snob thing, it's like a foodie who knows where to get the best wings, fries, cheesesteaks, or whatever. There's more out there than Crown, Seven, and Jack.
Click to expand...


You did not understand.
You take it for granted, that all single malts are good per se, just because they are single malts.
 
Rumpel said:
May I ask again:

Just as a cuvée may be better than a single-grape-wine - why can't a blended whisky not also be better than a single malt in some cases?
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable assertion. Unto itself, being a single malt Scotch, or a single barrel Bourbon, is no guarantee it will taste "better" - because after all, we're talking about taste - which is entirely subjective. And certainly coming from a single varietal grape is no guarantee any wine will be better than, for example, a claret from Bordeaux, which are virtually ALL blends of two or more grapes.

HOWEVER - just as it is with wines, other spirits are also often subjected to blind tastings, and when a consensus of educated palates agree about the superiority of something, it becomes damned likely that it is simply "better". Of course, it goes without saying that it doesn't matter which is the better orange when you're comparing apples to oranges. If what your taste craves is the best apple, the best orange simply won't do.
 
Rumpel said:
Why must it be Single Malt? What's wrong with Blended Whisky?

I have now opened a thread of its own with this question.
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with blended whisky, it exists to tell us who is a cheap whisky heathen to be shunned by all of polite society.
 
Rumpel said:
I do enjoy Blended Whisky as well.

For example: Tullamore Dew! :peace
Click to expand...

I dislike Tullamore Dew.

I bought a bottle and it ended up only being fit for the egg nog and my coffee on weekends.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cost. Premium single malt is expensive.

But the leftovers, in a blend, can be pleasant and more affordable.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
MamboDervish said:
It's a reasonable assertion. Unto itself, being a single malt Scotch, or a single barrel Bourbon, is no guarantee it will taste "better" - because after all, we're talking about taste - which is entirely subjective. And certainly coming from a single varietal grape is no guarantee any wine will be better than, for example, a claret from Bordeaux, which are virtually ALL blends of two or more grapes.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

It is just that the big firms do not produce BETTER blended whiskies!
Because that had to ask a higher price, that nobody would pay.

But blendinng in itself is not bad at all.
 
Rumpel said:
Exactly!

It is just that the big firms do not produce BETTER blended whiskies!
Because that had to ask a higher price, that nobody would pay.

But blendinng in itself is not bad at all.
Click to expand...

Wineries are catching on there. More and more excellent red blends are coming out. They can find a balance that reduces the tannins, deepens the flavors, etc.

I hate tannins, so I dislike cheap reds but the better blends are worth trying. Have found several that are good.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom