Ed wrote: Mr TattieHeid, you may feel free to turn up your nose at vatted malts as something substandard unworthy of your time and attention. Perhaps you are correct to do so. I certainly am not in a position to tell you to do otherwise, I, a lowly bourbon drinker just now exploring malts in a serious way.
My goodness, I hope that's not what I said! I can't find the reference just now. I'm sure I said I wasn't much interested in vatted malts, nor bourbons, either, but I'd never say they were "something substandard unworthy of [one's] time and attention". I'm simply keen right now on examining the product of each Scottish distillery in its own right. Perhaps at some time in the future an exploration of the Compass Box kind of thing will seem the next logical step, but just now I'm awash in single malts. Hey, whatever floats your boat is okay with me. Nor would I ever classify you as a "lowly" bourbon drinker, nor discount your opinion just because I thought I had more experience than you. I've only been into this for a few years myself.
I do hope I can get you to stop saying "irregardless", though.
Harry, this confusion over the use of the word "vatted" is precisely why I never liked the term "vatted malt". I thought "pure malt" or "all malt" was more properly descriptive, but I seem to be in a minority on that.
Admiral, I defer to your distinction between vatting and blending, although this sounds an awful lot like the discussion over whether Islay is an Island, or just an island. Jackson notes that the grocer's vattings became blends with the introduction of the column still. But I do wonder what the grocers called the product prior to that...well, probably just "whisky".