Jump to content

Whisky


redial
 Share

Recommended Posts

That’s got your attention.

I usually keep a bottle in the house, just talking about blended rather than malt. I have noticed that most of the supermarkets stock Bells / Grouse and their own label. Does anyone ever see the older offerings I remember from the late 60’s /70’s, Long John, Haig, Black &  White etc.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, redial said:

That’s got your attention.

I usually keep a bottle in the house, just talking about blended rather than malt. I have noticed that most of the supermarkets stock Bells / Grouse and their own label. Does anyone ever see the older offerings I remember from the late 60’s /70’s, Long John, Haig, Black &  White etc.

Cheers.

Yes -most you have mentioned are available, but perhaps not on all supermarket shelves.

If you are a blended whiskey drinker - then can I suggest Johnny Walker black label - £20 in most regular places.

Its a beautiful whiskey- just add water to your own taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, redial said:

Cutty Sark, I remember that one.

Cutty Sark had a strong connection with the London wine merchants, Berry Bros, and Rudd.  History here;

https://blog.bbr.com/2010/02/09/farewell-to-cutty-sark/

White Horse was my personal favourite of the 'non premium' blends as it had a lot of Islay whiskies in the blend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, redial said:

That’s got your attention.

I usually keep a bottle in the house, just talking about blended rather than malt.

 

Don't confuse Blended Scotch Whisky with a Single Malt.

Blended is typically less than 20% Malt Whisky (of 3 years or more old) with the rest being Grain Spirit (as used to make Gin and Vodka etc) which was made a few days before it was bottled.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my pallet Ballantines Whisky is a smooth blended whisky, although I do keep my eye on Tesco’s offers on malt whiskies.

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

White Horse was my personal favourite of the 'non premium' blends as it had a lot of Islay whiskies in the blend.

A White Horse trotted into a pub and asked for a large whisky. The barmen said we’ve a whisky named after you. The horse replied “ What? Dobbin?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, miki said:

 

Don't confuse Blended Scotch Whisky with a Single Malt.

Blended is typically less than 20% Malt Whisky (of 3 years or more old) with the rest being Grain Spirit (as used to make Gin and Vodka etc) which was made a few days before it was bottled.
 

That’s interesting, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, the hitman said:

Yes -most you have mentioned are available, but perhaps not on all supermarket shelves.

If you are a blended whiskey drinker - then can I suggest Johnny Walker black label - £20 in most regular places.

Its a beautiful whiskey- just add water to your own taste.

It's a Whisky if Scottish and a Whiskey if Irish or yank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bluesj said:

I some times wish I could tell one from another as I've got a couple of bottles that should be good.

A Lagavulin 16 year old single malt and a bottle of 1970's Haig Dimple.

Lagavulin is a very distinctive whisky - and something of a 'Marmite' character in that it is loved by some and hated by others as it is an Islay and VERY pronounced Islay with strong 'seaweed' characteristics.  Almost anyone would easily distinguish Lagavulin from most other whiskies as it is very individual.

The Dimple Haig is (I think) a blend - albeit a 'delux' blend.  It's not one I know at all.  Whilst it will be quite unusual having survived un-drunk in bottle 50 years, in fact whisky doesn't improve after it is bottled.  The 16 years on the Lagavulin is the maturation time in the cask, when it does change and mature, but once bottled it is effectively 'frozen' in maturation as at the day of bottling.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

whisky.looks loverly.............tastes like rusty water ...awful stuff

You just haven't found the right one yet...

Have you tried a Dailuaine, Blair Athol or Benrinnes ?
Perhaps a heavily charred barrel offering like the GlenScotia Victoriana or the Royal Lochnagar ?
Maybe a smokey and peated Longrow from Springbank or the Ledaig 18 from Tobermory.?

3 distinct groups there with smilarities but so so different.
None of those taste like rusty water, they are all single Malt Whiskies.

The sharp metalic flavours come from the grain spirit used in Blended Scotch and i'd agree that most of those taste nothing like a real, aged Whisky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

.... Whilst it will be quite unusual having survived un-drunk in bottle 50 years, in fact whisky doesn't improve .....

In the 1990s my tee-total father-in-law gave me a bottle of Haig that he had kept since before WW2.

It went down very well, certainly smoother than the usual Scotch that I drank then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ditchman said:

not over a £1000/bottle......and up to £90,000/bottle

Yes, I wouldn't buy a bottle that was that expensive but if someone gave it to me i'd open it and have a taste.
In my experience a lot of the old and rare whiskies aren't that good, similar to the majority of 6 to 8 year olds, they are sharp and loose flavour quickly.

Rare (there isn't much of it left) and old (it's been maturing in a barrel for 45 years) are two different things.
If you ever get to Glenfarclas the 10 is good, the 12 a bit better, the 15 better still, more flavour and longer tasting, the 25 is excellent (IMO) as it reaches its peak, the 30 isn't a lot better, certainly (again IMO) not worth £750 (£550 more than the 25).

In Aberlour there is a pub called the Mash Tun.
They have Glenfarclas whiskies going back to before the 2nd World War, pick your birth year and have a dram. The 1957 was around £1000 a nip if I recall.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, miki said:

In my experience a lot of the old and rare whiskies aren't that good

I don't have experience of whiskies, but the same applies to wines.  I have been lucky enough to taste some old and rare wines.  Some are delicious, and some are probably best described as 'past their best'.  High prices are paid for older bottles, and you may get lucky, you may be disappointed.  I sampled (in the last 12 months) side by side two Bordeaux wines from 1961, a very good year and now over 60 years old.  One bottle was very good - though once opened needed drinking quickly as it soon lost its qualities, the other was dull and lacked any appeal.  To our surprise, the 'good' bottle was a modest relatively ordinary Bordeaux Chateau, whereas the 'poor' bottle was a 'higher end' known name and should have been much the better.  There is huge variability; some wines from the 1990s are a disappointment now, whereas some from the 1960s are still lovely.

Three things stand out (from quite a few 'trials'),

  1. You can't rely on a 'famous name or year' still being good
  2. Some less well known names and less 'premium' years can be very good indeed
  3. Open and drink immediately; old wines oxidise and degrade quickly after opening and can be markedly poorer in under an hour.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't have experience of whiskies, but the same applies to wines.  I have been lucky enough to taste some old and rare wines.  Some are delicious, and some are probably best described as 'past their best'.  High prices are paid for older bottles, and you may get lucky, you may be disappointed.  I sampled (in the last 12 months) side by side two Bordeaux wines from 1961, a very good year and now over 60 years old.  One bottle was very good - though once opened needed drinking quickly as it soon lost its qualities, the other was dull and lacked any appeal.  To our surprise, the 'good' bottle was a modest relatively ordinary Bordeaux Chateau, whereas the 'poor' bottle was a 'higher end' known name and should have been much the better.  There is huge variability; some wines from the 1990s are a disappointment now, whereas some from the 1960s are still lovely.

Three things stand out (from quite a few 'trials'),

  1. You can't rely on a 'famous name or year' still being good
  2. Some less well known names and less 'premium' years can be very good indeed
  3. Open and drink immediately; old wines oxidise and degrade quickly after opening and can be markedly poorer in under an hour.

 

many years ago i was given a bottle of Mouton - Rothschild....it was an 80's vintage....it was supreme.......the next day i rang Peatling & caldring  and asked if they had any in of that year...they said they were sold out but had some of the next year...so i nipped down and and bought 4 bottles....

they were awful........😭

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...