Single Malts vs Blends – Understanding Whisky

windowIf there is one persistent meme that seems to have firmly inserted itself into the minds of everyone with even a passing awareness of scotch-style whiskies, it is that single malts are of perceived higher quality than “blends”.

Many will certainly agree that the greatest diversity of flavour comes the traditional, single pot-distilled, malted barley form of whisky, aged for extended periods in oak barrels (aka, the classic Scottish single malt). So it may therefore surprise you to learn that almost all “single malt” scotch you will find in your local liquor store is in fact a blend of many different individual whiskies.

Blending vs Vatting

This is our first lesson in how the marketing machine that barrels over (pun intended) the whisky world has distorted people’s understanding of this product. In an effort to provide a cachet (and justify a higher price), single malt whisky has undergone several decades of extensive “higher quality” branding. Most people naturally assume that “single malt” means just that – a single whisky from a single barrel. In fact, what a Scottish “single malt” actually means is that it is only malt whisky, prepared in the traditional way, and produced by a single distillery in Scotland. Note the distinctions inherent in that qualification.

In fact, pretty much every “single malt” you can buy (aside from some limited individual cask expressions) is produced by “vatting” or “marrying” together dozens to hundreds of individual barrels of whisky. Of course, those are just fancy ways of saying blending. 😉 Maker don’t like using the word blending in this context, since a “blend” is the short-form name for a specific combination of different styles of whiskies (as I will explain below).

Typically, the individual malt whiskies that get “vatted” together have been aged for varying amounts of time, in barrels that previously contained different types of spirits to start with (see my discussion here of where whisky flavours come from).

Age Statements

Wait a minute, I hear you ask – so what does that age statement (e.g., “12 year old”) mean on my bottle of single malt? It certifies the minimum age of the youngest whisky that went into that vatting. So your bottle could contain only a miniscule amount of 12 year old whisky, and be heavily biased toward much older whiskies. And technically, ALL the whisky in there could be well over 12 years old for that matter. See this post for a good example of just such a case.

As an aside, the cachet built-up around higher age statements was largely cooked up during a period of significant down-turn in the whisky market. With lots of excess inventory sitting in warehouses slowly aging, the whisky industry began pushing higher defined age statements as a sign of quality. In reality, they are a sign of cost – the longer that barrel has sat on some rack, the more it has cost the producer to store it (and so, the more you are likely going to pay for it). Given the recent resurgence of whisky consumption, there is now much talk of aged whisky shortages. Along with this is a move by distillers to release new No Age Statement (NAS) expressions, to better manage their inventories.

The furor over this has been extreme, as it is widely seen by many as a way for distillers to lower the quality of the final product (without necessarily lowering price). I don’t intend to wade in on this topic, but you should be aware it is a frothy field for discussion on most blog sites.

“Single Malt” vs “Blended” Whiskies

Back to the Distillerytopic at hand – so, if that is what constitutes a “single malt”, what on earth is a “blended whisky” then? Blended whiskies (which are estimated to make up >90% of all scotch whisky sales worldwide) are blends of single malt whisky and so-called “grain whiskies”. Now, the pedantic among you may note that barley is indeed a grain. 😉 The distinction is that “malt” whisky is made exclusively from malted barley, prepared in a traditional way and distilled using a small batch pot-still method. As such, it is still more of a hand-crafted “artisanal” product – although one currently practiced on an incredibly large scale, as shown in the accompanying picture.

“Grain whisky” in contrast is produced by a much simpler and more economical method, using a continuous column still that is an example of the 19th century industrial revolution at work. This method produces a lot more whisky more quickly, on a truly industrial scale (i.e., grain distilleries truly are factories, in the classic meaning of that term). Column stills don’t require malted barley, and instead use a wide variety of economical grains – with corn, wheat, rye and unmalted barley being most commonly used.

So why don’t we just use this cheaper grain whisky method exclusively? It seems that the small batch method used to produce single malts still imparts the greatest variety of base whisky flavours. The effects of (and need for) maturation in wood barrels are also somewhat different for typical malted barley and grain whiskies. According to the experts, grain whiskies require longer in barrels to become truly interesting. But it also seems that they are also more “drinkable” at a young age than most single malts.

What this all means is that, by definition, grain whisky is cheaper to produce and age, as it doesn’t seem to need to spend as long in wood barrels to be considered good enough to sell. Traditional single malts do typically have a flavour advantage over grain whiskies though. This is why most scotch whisky connoisseurs quickly migrate to single malts, for the wide diversity of flavour they can provide. That said, outstanding grain whiskies can be produced – as you will see in my discussion of practices elsewhere in the world.

Price Points and Consumer Choice

For many casual consumers, traditional low-cost blends can provide the best price/performance trade-off. Again, in terms of scotch specifically, blends denote a mix of malt whiskies and grain whiskies. The mix will vary according to the brand and expression, but typically these are mainly grain whiskies, with some select malt whisky thrown in to liven things up a little.

To use a baking analogy, have you ever tried using synthetic versus all-natural vanilla extract? The synthetic version contains just the principal chemical component of vanilla, and doesn’t provide the full experience of the natural extract. But you can buy synthetic vanilla with a small amount of natural extract added in (e.g. 20%). This typically does a good enough job that you can’t taste the difference from full extract in the final product. It’s not a perfect analogy for our purposes, since the grain whisky in question here is still a whisky. But it doesn’t help explain why blends are the predominant output for this industry.

But again, there should be outstanding blended whiskies out there – just as there are outstanding single malts. These can be hard to come by though, given the fact that single malts are available to fill that high-end market niche. As a result, most blends focus on the low-end of the market. But there is no reason why high quality blends can’t be made – and I encourage readers to explore the wider world of international whiskies to find some outstanding examples. You don’t even have to venture too far geographically – several blended Irish whiskeys are also quite popular with discerning whisky drinkers.

Source of Whisky Flavours

barley-field2But let’s get back to why single malts of “vatted” in the first place. To understand this, you must consider what imparts the actual flavours to a whisky. Please see my whisky flavour page for more information on this point.

Given that each barrel of whisky is unique, how on earth do distillers keep a consistent product on store shelves?

The answer comes down to blending (aka vatting). The reason your Glenlivet 12 year old (or any other single malt) continues to taste the same from bottle to bottle is that it is made in giant batches where they blend together many hundreds of individual barrels. These sources barrels are not blended together at random. The Master Blender of the distillery is following a general recipe (i.e., so many barrels of this age, so many of that cask type, etc.) that he or she adjusts on every batch to ensure overall consistency.

There are other strategies, depending on the product. For example, most bourbon is made from a custom mash bill that is distilled and aged in new oak barrels, in a consistent way. To overcome natural variation (including environmental differences throughout the warehouse), the complete output of a batch may be blended together before bottling. Of course, that doesn’t work with Scotch, where you are trying to craft a distinctive product from multiple independent sources (be they from the same distillery or not).

How Consistency is Maintained Across Batches in Scotch

This is done by some variant of a common method, for both so-called single malts and blends. The master blenders of the distillery (or third-party bottler) will start with a general recipe of the individual whisky casks required to produce the final flavour components of their brand’s signature taste.

But of course, no two individual whiskies will ever be the same – even if prepared in exactly the same way. There are just too many natural sources of variation at play (right down to regional variations in temperature and humidity in the warehouse, state of wood in the casks, etc.). As such, the master blended will need to alter the relative amounts of individual components in an attempt to achieve a consistent finished product.

Note that this requires the use of highly experienced tasters – those who can appreciate the individual components of each whisky that go into the mix. These individuals are highly prized by any distillery, as they are key to getting consistency in the final product.

Starting with a general recipe (that gets uniquely revised each time), the individual whisky casks are poured together into giant vats – typically huge stainless steel drums. The volume of these vats can easily be in the tens of thousands of liters (maybe more in some cases). Typically, the whiskies are left to “marry” for a period of time this way – potentially even for months. In some cases, this “marrying” may involve storing the mixed product in well-used wood casks for a period of time before reassembling the final batch. Time is money here, and you can’t always afford to have your blending vats tied up for extended periods.

The next step is to compare any new potential batch to an exemplar from the previous batch (i.e., a reference standard). Note this doesn’t have to be some absolute standard – simply using the last bottled version is good enough. The comparison is done using some variant of blind A-B testing. For example, a common method apparently involves pouring two glasses from the old batch, and one glass from the new. The experienced tasters are blind as to which glass is which. They are then asked to identify the “odd man out” (i.e., which one tastes different from the other two). If they consistently identify the new make as being different (as is likely initially), the master blended has to go back and adjust the relative contents of the new batch by adding new whiskies in, and trying the blind comparison tasting again. Once you get it to the point where the tasters cannot consistently differentiate the new from the old, you are good to go ahead and bottle.

Of course, that’s in an ideal world. Practically, distillers have to accept some “slippage” in flavour matching over time, due to the limited availability of source stock. Once it becomes untenable to continue to keep calling something under the same label as previously used, the distillery will need to come up with a new designation for this product. After all, no one is going to flush those tens of thousands of liters of whisky down the drain. Time for a special “Founders Reserve” release anyone? 😉

Why Whiskies Really Taste Different

Suffice it say, there are real reasons why whiskies taste different from each other – and it has everything to do with the differing processes for production, aging and blending performed by each of the distillers. These can certainly depend on the historical methods of malting and extraction, the types of stills used, availability of barrels, etc. But it is the culmination of all the techniques and processes employed by the skilled craftspeople all down the line that matter, not the starting material. And at the end of the day, it is really the master blenders who create the final engineered product that you enjoy, from the constituent components that they have on hand.

And so, make no mistake about it – whisky is an engineered product.


  • This is one of the best description/explanation I’ve read yet into the complexities of whisky. Well done!

    • Clear, concise and straightforward. Everyone who enjoys a good whisky should read this article, it puts into perspective the expectations of the consumer vs. the reality of a gigantic industry.

    • Good way describe in detail.

  • Well, this article hits the nail for me. Great compilation of information I have been wanting to know about this subject “All About Whiskey”…thanks a bunch.

  • Very interesting, especially since I just returned from Scotland & Ireland where I tasted many whiskies. It was interesting how many distilleries we visited that always touted how their “single malt” whisky was so much better than their others. I think the fact that they say that makes you feel it’s true when you taste them. I wonder how that tasting would have been had I known this information before I went abroad.

    I also learned that Scotland makes whisky, whereas, Ireland and the rest of the world make whiskey. Too hard to remember?….there is no “e” in Scotland and no “e” in whisky. There is an “e” in Ireland and there is an “e” in whiskey.

    • Yes, each distillery like to think their product is best. 🙂 There are real differences between the final products of different distilleries (and some are generally perceived to be better than others) – it is just not for the reasons commonly stated.

      The “e” business in whisky/whiskey is really one of historical language traditions – although this too is often obscured online. Ireland commonly used both spellings for a long time (and apparently even favoured “whisky” at one point in time). A lot of sites online claim that adoption of the “e” form was to distinguish from Scottish whisky production – but there is not much historical evidence for that. instead, it appears that it was simply the massive consolidation in ownership in the late 20th century (by the group that became Midleton) that led to the standardization on one form (the “e” version in this case).

  • Having just toured two distilleries in the Speyside region, much of what you say was noted in the tour guides spiel. Some of this information was couched in language that leant a positive glow to the marketing of NAS blends. The guide did admit howeve that it was indeed a response to the increased cache of ” single malts”. She also explained the difference between single cast and single malt. Thank you for your very good explanation of these confusing issues. I do still wonder if there are blends of just barley malts but from different distilleries, individual blends of say some Speyside, and Islay whiskers.

    • I’m glad to hear that many of the main points covered here were included on your distillery tours (they aren’t always!).

      In terms of blends of malt whisky from different distilleries, this is indeed quite likely in many of the so-called “Bastard Malts” (as described by the Malt Maniacs). Like in the cheaper supermarket blends, the originating distillery is obscured on these vatted malts. But unlike those cheap blends (which likely use mainly poor quality casks), the “bastard malts” usually represent fairly decent entry-level malt whisky (that is likely from surplus production). While some of these are labelled as “single malts” and thus come from a single distillery (e.g., the various McClelland regional expressions), a number are just identified by the region alone. You see these especially for Islays malts, and I’ve seen a few Speysides go by as as well. In those cases, I would expect they are indeed a blend of malt whisky from multiple distilleries.

      And of course, there are also well known disclosed quality vatted malts out there, like those from Compass Box (who make both traditional blends and vatted malts of multiple distilleries). See the recent uproar over labeling of This is not a Luxury Whisky and the Flaming Heart 15th Edition, where they initially disclosed the malt mixes.

  • Great article. I now better understand the significance of “single malt”, and whiskey/whisky, in terms of blended and not blended, single and multiple cask. I’m sure in their strictest sense they are more or less important. However, In terms of the personal preference of a particular consumer’s taste , and price considerations they( single malt verses blended mean nothing (my opinion)). Leave it to the marketers! Thanks for the information.

  • Great read, well explained and well written. Thanks.

  • Thank you very much for a thoughtful article and one that is written in a very neutral stance.

    I personally see the distinction as follows (flawed or otherwise ;-): Single Malts are expressions that are engineered to be drunk “stand-alone” or neat. They are more elemental/basic/”raw” than the blend (say, like Earl Grey over PG Tips or Kona over Folgers, or Hangar 24 over Coors).

    I see blends primarily geared for ~mixed~ drinks – that is, can (and should) be drunk in conjunction with a mixer (juice, coke,7-up, soda, etc). Blends are typically made in staggering volumes (eg Officer’s Choice, Jack Daniel’s, Johnnie Walker Red) and the backbone of target volumes for popular blends ~can only be met~ by the marvel of continuous distillation possible with coffey stills.

    I will be bold and say that, with the exception of premium blends (eg Chivas 21 Royal Salute), engineering requirements for blends are ~less~ precisely because they will be drunk in a mix and this is reflected in their price (Adam Smith would say “well obviously!” you’re making a s**t load of it. 😉

    We, the punter, can argue over whether a given Single Malt is better tasting than a Blend or vice versa (distiller’s have no qualms about bottling shit whisky Single or Blend at any price) but, can we say arriving at a good tasting Single is much more dependent on the engineering and craftsman ship than is the case with a blend?

  • Fantastic article! Great detail and it answered questions I didn’t even think to ask before reading it.
    One thing that has always bothered me is that why Scotland is so arse(y) about their “malts”. Having worked with various alcohol producers, very few Scottish producers seem to be even remotely interested in expanding or venturing into new whisky markets (suggestions of Scottish Botanic Whisky are unheard of and not well received).

    I understand that there are legal qualifications as to what constitutes as a malt whisky in Scotland (and not as a “spirit drink” for example) but I do not quite understand why the terms “premium” and “quality” are always linked to age and single malt. A great comparison is Japanese whiskies (see botanic whiskies), which have still attracted a huge (premium) consumer base even though in Scotland such products would never be considered as malts.

    I suppose heritage and traditions are a bitch but I just feel that Scotland has so much more untapped whisky potential. What’s your take on the matter?

    • There are pros and cons to any business model, and the Scottish whisky industry has certainly emphasized the preservation of their existing market cache (both for “premium” malts, and economical blends) – including through aggressive protection of their standards and labeling practices. To date, that strategy certainly seems to have done well for them. That said, there are also players on the margins who try to innovate with new approaches (although again, labeling restrictions can make that difficult in the UK).

  • Good clear summary. I have definitely noticed the marketeers at work over the last twenty years that has led to an increase in price even allowing for inflation. The same thing is now happening in the gin market. Talk about “mixing botanicals” and double the price. On whisky hard to look past the old favourites on their ‘standard’ form eg Talisker, the Islays, Highland Park and Tamnavulin for the malts. Black Bottle and JW Black Label for the blends.

  • Suwilanji Ng'ambi

    Thanks for this article. I’ve learned at lot and this helps a lot with my work as I do Marketing in Spirits and wines industry.

    I love to talk about the differences between brands in this part of the world and it is always refreshing to gain some new knowledge.


    I would like to know how a blend like Antiquary 35 is finished for the market. I could gather that the “marrying” period is a maximum of eight months. Thus the two, five or dozen malts must have been matured for 34 years and four months (minimum) and added to the three, four or ten grain whiskies themselves matured for 34 years and eight months before marrying them for eight months and then bottling. Does it really work like that ? If the blenders are nosing new make spirit to determine which malts shall finally find a place in their blend, are they allowed to do that by the distillery selling them the component single malt ? Can a single malt distillery sell their product to a blender before it is three years of age, in violation of SWA regulations ? If (I don’t exactly know, Tamdhu, Caol Ila and Fettercairn) are malts in Antiquary buy these malts each as a 12 year old, mature them at their own facility for three more years and marry them with similar grain whiskies for a period of six months, can they sell the blend as Antiquary 15? These thoughts linger over and above the wonderfully lucid explanation about how whiskies are blended but I would like you to answer them please.

    • It’s hard to say what exactly the practice is for Antiquary (or others) – especially in regards to who has care-and-control of individual whiskies, where and when. But the SWA regulations do require that the age statement apply to the youngest whisky in the mix (including grain whiskies), so all have to be at least as old as stated. The marrying period would not count toward this (unless it were done in wood barrels below 700 liters).


        Thanks for your explanation. You have confirmed my doubts about the industry that there is still a huge lack of transparency about how the final product in a blend is made. May be it is due to the producers’ belief that the less the customer knows about the production process, the better the whisky shall be to drink. Also explains the preponderance of NAS whiskies and their slowly taking over the market.

  • Superb! Thanks.

  • Blending is done during the distilling process, firstly the head, then the heart, then the tail. This is where the flavor profile is established. Lower priced blended whiskey combines all or most of the three distilling results. More expensive whiskeys are tasted to match a profile, and start at the center of the heart. Aging is a misconception, you can have smaller barrels, which will “age” a whiskey faster, as more distilled product is in contact with the barrel.

    • No, that’s a different feature you are referring to. It is true that cheaper blends often tend to use wider cuts off the still (i.e., taking more of the heads or the tails). But this is not where “blending” comes from – the article above describes what constitutes a Scottish blend (vs. blended malt, or single malt). And the increased the surface area-to-volume ratio of smaller barrels does indeed “age” many characteristics of a whisky faster – but not all, as it is not just wood exposure that accounts for changes over time. Again, refer to the article above and the detailed links throughout.

  • Really good explanation

  • Many thanks for this information. Got a question though. Have you come across the term ‘single origin’ on whiskey labels that you have given reviews for? I note now after reading the above of what ‘single malt’ actually means but would appreciate your feedback on ‘single origin’ if the terms has been used or can be associated with ‘whiskey’

    • I’ve not come across “single origin” for a whisky. It is an ambiguous term, not recognized by the Scotch Whisky Association. It could mean a single distillery – or a single country. I would suspect the latter, in cases of low-quality blends imported into other countries for a private label. It is common to see “local” whisky brands in Asia and Europe that are sourced from Scotland or Canada – but without identifying the actual distilleries, only the country of origin.

    • I read in an article from Waterford distillery that they had an experiment regarding the impact of terroir has on taste (the conditions of the growing barley e.g. earth ingredients , rain, geographic location etc.).
      In their experiment they distilled whisky from one origin. I suggest this might be the case to your question about single origin.

      P.a. I would like to accompany my fellow commenters and praise this great article.

  • Thanks for reply Selfbuilt. And if say I wanted to introduce a new whiskey into the international market – what event and which country would you recommend I start with – if I wanted to have both a mix of whiskey producers, tasters and reviewers present? Appreciate your help given your experience and knowledge accumulated in the area so far.

  • In blended Scotch whisky, what is the required minimum percentage of single malt whiskey in the blend?

    • The Scotch Whisky Regulations (and the EC directive they are linked to) don’t specify a minimal proportion of malt in a “blended scotch whisky.” From conversations I have had with people in the industry, it seems to be a relatively low proportion (i.e., the majority of a blended scotch whisky is grain whisky). I have heard of cases where experts refer to ~30% malt as a “relatively high” level of malt in a blend.

  • I really enjoy sitting back and relaxing at night with a whisky. Without going into the debate of single malt versus blended whiskies and also really looking into the process of how they’re manufactured, I’ve always enjoyed trying out various single malts to just check them out. Likewise I’ve also sat down and enjoyed a blended whisky, such as Teachers Highland Cream, ‘shock horror’ to some people. In my own mind, I’ve never really understood why people would want to add ice or water, after such care has gone into getting a whisky to taste as it should, so i was surprised to read, that you recommend possibly taking water with whisky to assist with the tasting. Fantastic piece written here which explains so much. Still as with most things where the taste is important, there will always be a certain amount of snobbery involved in which whisky tastes the best. I always think it would be fantastic to see a selection of self appointed whisky experts carry out a blind test, I’m sure the results would be interesting. Again congratulations on such an interesting read.

  • Here’s a question that comes to my mind every now and then when I read or think about single malts vs blends and the perceived higher drinking quality of the former: if you had at your disposal single malt whiskies from many different distilleries and tried to blend them in various ways, shouldn’t you – at least in theory – be able to achieve a result that is better than any of the individual single malts that you have? In other words, shouldn’t a good “blended malt” be capable of being better tasting than any single malt?

    • As explained on this page, single malts are indeed blended malts – they simply refer to different malts from a single distillery, to produce a desired flavour profile. You could certainly add a bit of a superior single malt to a lackluster one, in an attempt to help “lift it up”.

      The point about scotch blends (not blended malts) is they contain mainly cheap grain whisky, with a limited amount of quality malt. This is why they are cheaper and lower quality generally. But you could certainly make a quality blend with better quality grain whisky, aged longer in quality wood casks. The economics of the industry is why this rarely occurs (i.e. there are plenty of single malts to fill that niche).

      • First: wow! You are doing a fantastic job!
        Second: If I may be so bold as to bluntly answer Alex’s question, “YES, it’s not just theoretically possible, though – I do blind tastings almost every day. Taking great single malts, it is possible to create something better (to a specific person’s taste at a specific time) by careful tinkering with the proportions.”
        Third: Message me and I’ll send you some of my blends!
        Thanks for doing this. It is an inspiration for so many people.

      • I’m a fan of Douglas Laing & Co.’s “Remarkable Regional Malts” assortment of six blended malts reflecting the typical features of the six whisky regions. Marketing blurb: “Our Remarkable Regional Malts are the ultimate distillation of Scotland’s Malt Whisky regions; each bottling embodies the overarching characteristics of the region it is sourced from. If a Single Malt is a violin, a Blended Malt is an entire orchestra.” The way I see it, I’m tasting an entire region, as opposed to a single product (blended whisky) or a single distillery (single malt).

  • Great explanation on the reasons why we pay more for being a snob. However. . I’ve been lucky enough to acquire a few rare whiskies . . Including old port and red wine. Its an investment. You have given me food for thought. It really is an investment game.

  • good explanation,clearing many early illusions

  • I am of Scottish decent and visit the Scottish Borders every four years to attend the gathering of our clan at our chief’s estate. I am also a home distiller and, until recently, steadfastly refused to make whisky because I strongly held that adding an essence to neutral spirit was nothing like the traditional method. I made gin instead because I could make that by an authentic method.

    However! As a university qualified scientist with many years of hands-on work experience, I did my research and found that most of the ‘magic’ that occurs in the making of whisky occurs in the casks or barrels, as detailed in your article and many other papers on the subject. I also determined that the need for long periods of time required to age the spirit in barrels has a lot to do with:
    1. the fact that the barrels are necessarily so large (typically 500 Litres)
    2. because of this, very little of the spirit is in contact with the wood, at any one time, and
    3. therefore it necessarily follows that a long time is required for all of the spirit to be ‘aged’.

    By putting the barrel into the spirit, instead of the other way around, I have overcome my objection to making whisky. By this I mean that I reduce the oak barrel to wood chips, thus increasing the surface area dramatically, flame or toast the chips, and then add them to the ‘cask strength spirit’ (63%) in an inert vessel (glass or stainless steel). Within 24 hours you can see the spirit colouring, and within a few weeks significant ageing has occurred flavour-wise. I use a brand of absolutely pure water to dilute the ‘aged’ whisky to bottle strength (40%).

    Thanks for your article. It confirmed several things I already believed and sorted the fact from the fiction.


    • Thanks for the comments.

      It’s true that a very good way to age whisky “faster” – while maintaining all the general characteristics of wood aging – is to use smaller casks for expanded surface area to volume. A lot of makers do this to make more palatable whisky at a young age – either because they are just starting out and need to ship product (e.g. High Coast and Smogen in Sweden, etc), or because they want a faster time to market NAS (e.g. Laphroaig Quarter Cask). In practice, this seems to be a very good trade-off overall.

      Adding wood chips directly into the whisky is used by some new distillers to introduce wood flavours quickly into their spirit. But as you notice, this quickly changes the colour – and introduces a lot of wood flavouring initially. It doesn’t actually provide one of the main benefits of wood barrel aging, which is the slow (and controlled) oxidative aging, nor does it provide for the slow breakdown and release of wood elements through interaction with the high proof spirit. In essence, what you are getting is the immediate wood extraction benefits only. And these are particularly enhanced as the wood chips expose you to the grain ends of the wood, allowing for far more rapid penetration than what occurs in a barrel.

      I’ve tasted some examples of this from small craft producers, and have not been very impressed with the result – which seem both over-oaked and under-aged simultaneously. That said, I have found that method works well when “finishing” a traditionally barrel-aged whisky with more interesting toasted wood chips (e.g. Maker’s Mark 46 is a particularly good example). I know some have tried increased heat/low pressure to also simulate extended aging – but again, with mixed results.

      I’m a big fan of experimenting with new approaches, although it is hard to replace the benefit of existing aging methods.

  • My question is quite simple, but no one seems to know for sure. I have been told that scotch (single malt or blended) should not be left in a bottle that has been opened (even though re-corked) as it will spoil over time. Is this true? Or is someone pulling my leg?
    I’ve been a fan of single malts since the late sixties when we would buy Glenfiddich and Glenmorangie at the Sgt’s mess at RAF Kinloss for a paltry $1.27 per bottle! I’m now an Advocate for MacAllan.
    I/ve never experienced a spoiled scotch…

  • Hey Eric

    Greetings, this is Peter, a former Torontonian now living Taiwan.
    Just wanna say your data base is extremely fascinating, and much (much) than the one I made for myself ( which is heavy focused on pricing correlations between Taiwan compare to LCBO, US and Euro markets)
    Needless to say LCBO prices “scotch” insanely, so extra credits to what you are doing up there.

    Just wanted to ask if you can kindly share that if there are age stated OBs out that to your knowledge contains higher age juices?
    Or any NAS OBs that contains not entirely, but good ratio of older juices in them?

    Much thanks again

    • That is hard to say, and always a moving target.

      I have had some low age-stated official bottlings from the 1970s and 1980s that tasted much older. This would be consistent with the whisky glut in that era, where producers were sitting on a lot of aging inventory. The Glendronach 12yo definitely contained older whisky during the first years of its production, as the distiller’s hiatus period made it impossible to be all of that age (no longer necessarily true).

      When age-stated whiskies drop to NAS, it is generally believed that aged stocks continue for some time (in order to prevent consumer blowback). But as time goes by, the less likely aged juice is likely to be in ongoing NAS bottlings.

      Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from batch to batch, if not disclosed by the distillers on the bottle.

  • Pingback: John L Sullivan – The New Silent Whisky? | WestmeathWhiskeyWorld

  • this is the best written about scotch in clean language.

  • As a Scotsman who has drank whisky for decades and tried pretty much everything, I highly recommend Lagavulin 16 year old from the island Islay. It’s simply perfection, the perfect whisky. I’m lucky to have a friend who works at Highland Park and he let me have a taste of a Highland Park 50 year old which retails at £40,000 a bottle. As nice as it was I’ve never tasted a better whisky than Lagavulin 16 year old.

  • Leonidas Zissimatos

    Simply excellent article

    So is it possible for a single malt marked as (for example) 16 years old to contain other single malts
    of say 12 years of maturity???

    • No, under Scottish single malt labeling laws, the stated age is the minimum (youngest) age of every whisky inside the bottle. You can be sure that there is nothing younger than what is stated on the bottle.

  • the quest remain haunitng me for years as what is the difference between different whiskeys, it’s a well researched article on the issue of whiskey… and I found facts which are amazing and interesting to about whisky….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.