This could be heresy
on 12/17/2009 at 03:02 PM
Tough titty, Scotland. Like California wine vs. the French, let’s let a blind taste test decide.
I saw this on the BBC a few days back. You have to admire their enterprise. As I understand it they have their own farm so quality control of the barley should be no problem. They had a spokesman for one of the big drinks companies, Diageo I think, who was somewhat bemused. He didn’t think it would have much impact, and realistically until they can start selling the ten year old product it probably wont affect Scotland’s whisky industry at all. It is a sore point though. Scotland makes a lot of money out of whisky and they are less than impressed that the auld enemy has started producing a rival product. Since they are using ex Jim Beam barrels the finished product should be pretty good. I believe bourbon by law has to go into new barrels so they will always have a ready supply of barrels. Pity they couldn’t get a few sherry barrels as well though.
Is that color accurate--because no whisky should be that pale.
Is that color accurate--because no whisky should be that pale.
What you have to remember is that the alcohol is clear when it first goes into the barrel. The colour comes from tannin and other residues in the barrel. Scotch whisky is barreled in either second hand bourbon barrels or second hand sherry barrels. Obviously they impart a different flavour to the finished spirit. Bourbon as I understand it has to be barreled in new oak casks so they are happy to sell them off to the Scots, otherwise they would be scrap. Whisky in the UK cannot be legally sold unless it is (I think) a minimum of three years old. If you look at the picture above you can see the colour developing with age. Personally I would think the 3 year old whisky would be a bit rough, but by the time it has sat in the barrel for ten or more years a lot more colour and flavour will have developed.
12/18/2009 at 03:04 PM
