It seems to me that unnecessary resource is being directed to an area that need not be tinkered with.
Malt drinkers are invariably seasoned folk who have developed their palate and have a genuine interest in the product. They appreciate blends and vatted malts in their own right and recognise the subtle differences.
New drinkers will usually go for recognised brands and few really distinguish between a blend or single malt until their palate develops.
Do they really need to know that a malt is a blended malt as opposed to a vatted malt? I suggest that this only leads to confuse.
I am not going to vote and here is why. There is no fourth category that really clarifies things. The old system was clear to those who had taken the time to suss it out. The old system was not clear on the face of it if you hadn't been told what the terms meant. For a long time I thought that single malt meant that only one malt had been used in the brewing process, not that only the malt whisky from a single distillery had gone into the final product. The new system is not clearer. It is confusing to those that understood the old system without being more easily understandable to the novice. If they were going to change the accepted vocabulary they should not have borrowed from the old.
Anyone who has seen the sheet that came with the Spring 2005 George T Stagg Straight Kentucky Bourbon knows what aficionados want in a label. An enormous amount of information is included. Recipe, (no % though) cooking temp/ fermentation. Distillation and aging/ proof off still/ type of barrel. barrel maker/ entry proof/ barrel size/ warehouse/ angel share % age.
If this post isn't as clear as I would like it to be it is because I have been out at the bar and, well, you know.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests