To further elaborate on the previous post, it is required by federal law that bourbon (which, also by federal law, must originate in the US) be aged in new barrels. Since the barrels can only be used once, old bourbon barrels are commonly sold internationally for aging of other whiskies; many scotches are aged in bourbon barrels, as are some of the Japanese single malts based on scotch style.
(And a note on the spelling; in Scotland, Canada, and Japan, it’s “whisky”, in America and Ireland, it’s “whiskey”, except with a handful of distillers who prefer to use the other spelling.)
Bottled-in-bond, which I mentioned above, is a specific subcategory of bourbon established by federal law in the 19th century. In order to qualify, the bourbon must have been produced by one distiller, at one distillery, within a single calendar year, it must be aged in a federally-bonded warehouse for at least four years, and bottled at no less than 50% ABV. The designation was created at a time when bootleg and/or ersatz whiskeys of questionable quality were in wide distribution and was intended to guarantee the buyer that the product they were buying was the good stuff; it largely fell into disuse as a result of Prohibition and until a few years ago there were only about five or six brands of bonded bourbon in production, though the number has crept up as of late.
I recently tried a beer brewed with seaweed (Kelpie), brewed in Scotland. It was delicious. I bought the four remaining bottles. Try it if you get a chance.
Thing is, the first time I tried “scotch”, it was a vile, syrupy blend called “Cutty Sark”. No other scotch I have tried since has been as unpleasant as that stuff. That may be the justification for saying a blind taste test would fool some drinkers – it depends on what scotch and what bourbon you pick for samples.
I enjoy a nice Johnnie Walker Green from time to time. Blends can be fine, but they’re few and far in between. I’d be interested in learning of some interesting blends out there (if they do exist), but, outside of Johnnie Walker and the occasional Famous Grouse (which, while I realize is a pretty cheap Scotch, I enjoy from time to time due to my travels and imbibement of said whisky in Scotland), I’m pretty unlearned in the ways. Oh, and Dewar’s of course. Dewar’s is kind of the Jameson’s of Scotch for me–something to throw back with a beer. Not much a fan of Chivas, but I do have some “rough” tastes in general, otherwise.
I would use blended scotches only as mixers for cocktails. Single malts should be sipped neat. My favorite is Glenfiddich.
I like Rusty Nails, so I usually mix Drambuie with Famous Grouse or Wm. Grant’s, but I’ve used other blends like Dewar’s, J&B, Johnny Walker, and even Cutty Sark when (f’rinstance) on airliners or at friends’ homes. While not outstanding, I found them to be quite satisfactory.
Sure, the cheaper stuff. But not a $70 bottle of Green. That one is a damned tasty blend (actually, a vatted malt, like the Grouse) on its own, and I would take it over a good number of single malts. But that’s the only blend I’ve felt that way about.
ETA: I guess there’s another decent vatted malt out there, Compass Box Eleuthera. I’ll have to have a look out for it.
Ah. Yeah, I don’t really do Red Label neat. Even Black Label I generally need to mix with soda. Gold usually gets pretty good reviews, but I prefer Green over it. Blue is good, but way overpriced for what it is. I can’t think of any single malt at half the price that I wouldn’t take over it.
Many good comments! I’ll try to add some things that haven’t been said yet.
• Most peated malts are Islay or Island malts. One characteristic of peated malt that hasn’t been mentioned is phenol. If you’ve had Chlorettes cough drops, you know what phenol tastes like. I’ve had people say it tastes like medicine and/or smells like a hospital. Peated malts can vary in the intensity of their smoky and phenolic flavors. Lagavulin is probably the smokiest malt but has less phenol. Laphroig or Ardbeg may be the most phenolic, but they have less smoke than Lagavulin.
• The flavor profile of Scotch is much broader than that of bourbon. You can have peated or unpeated malt, and a wide variety of aging barrels is used. Used sherry, port, and other wine barrels are used to impart those particular flavors. Sometimes the sherry can be a bit comical IMHO. Cragganmore Distiller’s Edition tastes like they just dumped bottles of sherry into the vatting and called it a day.
• Contrariwise, the flavor profile of bourbon is pretty narrow. The laws for making it are rather strict, so it’s actually hard to produce bad bourbon. But certain things can stand out. Jim Beam uses a certain yeast that gives it a distinctive flavor. Jim Beam also makes Old Grandad with a high-rye mash bill that tastes pretty unique to me. Lately I have really been into Four Roses. They have 10 different recipes using different yeasts and grain combinations (mash bills). I highly recommend their barrel-proof, single-barrel offerings! To me, Four Roses has a congac-like palate and pretty awesome, oaky finish.
First time I had an Laphroaig, it tasted not unlike Listerine to me (the original yellow flavor, not the minty stuff.) Somehow, I got used to it and grew to love it. Looking it up, this makes sense, as Listerine has many phenolic compounds, according to what I’m reading.
