I’ve been recommending Suntory single malts to friends who visit Japan looking for a nice gift to take back home and I just read that it’s been awarded the title of the world’s best whisky. I haven’t tried the Single Malt Sherry Cask 2013 that won the award but if it’s anything like the 18-year old, I have no trouble believing it’s that good.
What’s more surprising is that this is the first time that Scottish whiskies have been shut out of the top five.
The Japanese have been doing stellar work with whiskies the last few years. Good stuff, but a bit pricy for my wallet for the most part. Maybe this will get the companies that own the Scottish distilleries to go back to the old ways rather than trying to put out “expressions” and all that malarky.
I’m certainly no expert, but I always thought there was a big difference between whisky (Scotch) and whiskey (bourbon, rye). I’m surprised that they’re all on the same list.
It should be noted this award is the opinion of one critic only. A respected critic mind you, but also a critic with an agenda of sorts. Murray has had a bee in his bonnet for Scotch for quite some time now.
It’s certainly interesting times ahead for scotch. World whisky is no doubt improving drastically. Foreign whisky will lead to the demise of scotch whisky industry unless the UK Government cuts excise duty on it. Right now scotch is a cash cow for the Government. Such challenges to scotch may also mean the Scottish Malt Whisky Society reduces the rules and regulations surrounding its production. Its only as matter of time imo before inner staves are re-introduced.
I think “finishing” is here to stay. Im using finishing here as a shorthand for experimentation. One of the problems for scotch is its historic dependance upon ex bourbon and sherry barrels. Sherry barrels are becoming as rare as hen’s teeth. Other types of barrels need to be found. It’s just a matter of experimentation to find out which barrels work nearly so well (if indeed any do work as well as sherry).
Don’t forget Irish, Canadian and elsewhere in the world whiskies!
Same big list, but it has a lot of subsections.
ETA: Fuzzy, you are probably right about the future of Scotch. Doesn’t mean I have to like it, though. 
Which is fair enough. Some of the results from finishing have been pretty damn poor. I do think there is a genuine need for diversity and experimentation though. However, with this comes a risk in decline of quality. It’s either experimentation *or *we all start buying Sherry again by the bucket load.
I forgot to say, it’s either this or we introduce more Peat! Let’s see how non Islay lovers enjoy that. 
From the article a reviewer comments:
When you put it that way, I’ll always pick the Maserati.
If that’s the alternative I’ll stick with bourbon, thank you very much.
The only Islays I can stomach are Bunnahabhain and, of all things, Bowmore 17.
When it comes down to it, whiskey/whisky is just an aged distillate of a grain mash. What this means is that someone makes a sort of beer out of various grains, distills it, and ages it in wooden barrels for some length of time.
The details of what grains, how/where it’s distilled and how/where it’s aged are what define the various styles of whiskey.
For example, if you make your mash from at least 51% corn, distill it to not more than 125 proof, age it at least 2 years in new charred oak barrels, and bottle it at not less than 40 proof and do it all in the USA and you have Bourbon whiskey. Do it in Tennessee and filter it through charcoal, and you have Tennessee whiskey.
If you make your mash from malted barley and water in Scotland, distill it to less than 190 proof, and age it for 3 years in Scotland in oak barrels (not necessarily new), and bottle it at no less than 40 proof, then you have Scotch whiskey.
And so on and so forth… you can kind of think of it as being similar to beer, in that an Imperial Stout, a Pilsner and a Belgian Tripel are all three pretty different beers, but are essentially the same under the hood- being formed on a backbone of malt, hops water and yeast. Whiskey is much the same way.
I assumed Jackknifed Juggernaut was talking about the product, not the process. Different types of whisky/whiskey vary enough in style that putting them all on a single ranked list seems somewhat meaningless.
Similarly, if somebody had a list of “world’s best beers” I’d consider it awfully fluffy. Comparing, say, Three Floyds Dark Lord to Saison Dupont just isn’t going to yield a very useful verdict, because the different between type is so much more pronounced that the difference between quality.
I’d actually say that whiskey is closer together than beer, but I agree that comparing say… Elijah Craig 12 yr old to Bruichladdich Classic is kind of crazy.
I’d say maybe a “Malt Whiskey” category that would encompass Scotch, Irish and Japanese whiskies, and maybe a “N. American” category that would encompass most of the rest.
My favorites tend to be the Islays. (My favorite scotch is probably the Ardbeg Uigeadail). I’ve been hearing great stuff about the Japanese whiskeys for years, but I’ve yet to try one. Do any of them have peat characteristics at all, or are they more like Speyside malts, or what? I like them all, but I tend to drink Scotch whiskey because I’m hankering for some peat.
I think at least one of them does have peat in it. I don’t know the name of it im afraid. I know the Indian whisky Amrut have a peated expression that has a very a good reputation.
I’ve had the Yamazaki 12 yr; it’s a single-malt, but more along the lines of an unpeated Scotch than anything else. It’s very smooth without lacking in flavor or aromatics.
To my taste, it’s an extremely carefully distilled and aged whiskey- kind of what you’d expect the Japanese to make.
Is that why peat has gotten so fashionable of late? I’m as sick of that as I am of the hops arms race in IPAs.
Not such a fan of the Japanese single malts. Not bad or anything, just not my cup of tea and I don’t think the cost performance is great.
Kavalan is a single malt made in Taiwan. Trust me on this one - it is nothing special. It’s free on Eva Air business class flights but after the second try there will be no third. Jus’ sayin’
I’ll make a confession: I sometimes like to take a little bit of the Ardbeg Uigeadail (which is quite heavily peated) and add a few drops or a teaspoon or so to whatever bourbon I happen to have lying around to give it a bit of a smokey head. Bourbon is usually too sweet for my tastes, but adding a bit of smoke to it, and I enjoy it more. Shhh… Don’t tell anyone.
I think one reason peat is so fashionable is cost. Peated whisky is generally younger, it therefore has less tax on it. Distillers can wheel out excellent peated whisky at 10 years of age or younger. Whiskey without peat usually takes longer to age successfully, say at around 12 to 18 years or so. Thats another 2 to 8 years of warehousing costs and excise duty on the already outrageous retail price.
Excise goes up with age? Really?
Certainly you have the angels share adding cost but I never know about the tax thing. Interesting.
laphroaig 10 year old is all over the duty free shops. I’m not a fan of it. 10 years just isn’t enough aging for a single malt IMHO