Any One for a Scotch?

[ama]



I'm a fan of it!
BTW For the MaCallan I discovered the reason why I enjoyed the 12yr I recently purchased much more than previous 12yr MaCallans. This one is the Sherry cask advertised as a Speyside.
Previously I must have had the fine oak 12yo, which is advertised as a highland.

I don't understand, what Macallan were you drinking before?

hibiki 12, 17, and 21 scored.
Now searchign for hibiki 30

http://www.whiskyshop.com/Shop/Hibiki-30-year-old-PID3414.aspx

Also, they have it: http://www.hedonism.co.uk

I can't imagine what would possess you to drop a over a K on it though.

 

[DWFII]



Quite true. But, I don't know where else they would be discussed--they are certainly Scotch in spirit, if not in letter

Well, that's a point....

I guess they could go to all the trouble of creating their own thread...so onerous. Or they could post in "What Are You Drinking Right Now?"

The basic problem is that it's a lot like posting pictures of Alden shoes in the Gaziano and Girling thead. One wonders if it's just laziness or an attempt to garner credibility by association.

In any case, by definition, OT.

 

[b1os]



Honestly it's no skin off my teeth if folks want to discuss these whiskies but they are not Scotch. (see title of thread)
As I understand it, legally Scotch must come from Scotland and must be aged in wood in Scotland for no less than three years.
Just sayin'...

Again?
I understand, it's been a year and it's such a pressing issue.

 

[DWFII]



Again?
I understand, it's been seven months and it's such a pressing issue.

Well, of course, the only reason I mention it is to irritate you...personally.

The bonus is that it invites you to be an ass--a part that seems to come naturally to you..

It's almost too easy.

 

[embowafa]

Starting a completely new thread over distinctions between Japanese and Scotch Whisky is text book nit picking.

I think we're all well read enough on the subject to be able to distinguish between the two without ruining the thread's good name.

 

[aravenel]



Starting a completely new thread over distinctions between Japanese and Scotch Whisky is text book nit picking.
I think we're all well read enough on the subject to be able to distinguish between the two without ruining the thread's good name.

Agreed. I don't often drink Japanese whisky, but it is clearly Scotch in spirit. Starting a separate thread for it seems silly.

 

[djblisk]



I don't understand, what Macallan were you drinking before?
http://www.whiskyshop.com/Shop/Hibiki-30-year-old-PID3414.aspx
Also, they have it: http://www.hedonism.co.uk
I can't imagine what would possess you to drop a over a K on it though.

Thanks for this!

I'll take a pic when I get it and put in a review.

 

[DWFII]



Starting a completely new thread over distinctions between Japanese and Scotch Whisky is text book nit picking.
I think we're all well read enough on the subject to be able to distinguish between the two without ruining the thread's good name.

Maybe yes, maybe no. As I said , I don't honestly care one way or the other.

But the distinction is real and it does exist...in law.

And incidentally when we...or more likely newbies ...invest time and interest in a thread that promises to talk about Scotch, it is a little confusing to talk about ersatz.

Scotch is more than just barley liquor. It is the culture and the Tradition and the aging and the peat.

Sparkling wine is not Champagne unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Tequila is not tequila unless it is 100% blue agave and comes from the state of Jalisco--Mescal is not tequila...no matter how easy or attractive it is to blur the distinction. Irish single malt is not Scotch.

The assertion that Hibiki is "Scotch in spirit" is spurious, at best, IMO. Without barley as a staple food, sans the drying processes (often over peat fires), without the cultural importance of the whisky in the history of people, where's the "spirit?" But if you want to see it that way...suit yourself.

Next we'll be asserting that the distinction between "whisky" and "whiskey" is nit-picking.

I'm not advocating a whole new thread...although as I said it's not that hard to start a thread here. I'm just looking to make sure that the distinctions...and the Traditions and the uniqueness...of real Scotch are recognized and foremost in our minds.

--

 

[b1os]

Déjà-vu.

 

[DWFII]



Déjà-vu.

It has been proven that the perception of deja-vu is a neurological aberration.

So appropriate....

 

[b1os]

FWIW, while we're at the topic of distinctions in law, tequila can also come from parts of Guanajuato, Michoacán, Nayarit and Tamaulipas (Jalisco covers 2/3 of the municipalities). Moreover, not 100% but 51% of blue agave (sugar) is sufficient.

 

[DWFII]



FWIW, while we're at the topic of distinctions in law, tequila can also come from parts of Guanajuato, Michoacán, Nayarit and Tamaulipas (Jalisco covers 2/3 of the municipalities). Moreover, not 100% but 51% of blue agave (sugar) is sufficient.

So what? I thought we were talking about Scotch not Tequila. I don't claim to know all that much about Tequila...I'll defer to your Wikipedia citation...I got my information from the proprietor of a high end Tequilaria in Cancun (or Playa, I can't remember which). That's what I was told when I asked...one state, 100% blue agave.

But it doesn't make any difference whether it's one state or two or three...or ten. The analogy holds. If you're a Japanese or Argentinian or Texas based distiller and you label your liquor Tequila the Mexican government will sue your ass.

Beyond that, my point holds. Anything else is "lowest-common-denominator" thinking. It minimizes the very things--the character--that make Tequila or Scotch or Saki or Champagne unique.

And, ultimately when you minimize/ trivialize the differences and the distinctions between, for instance, Japanese whiskey and Scotch whisky, you trivialize both.

And then nothing rises to the level of distinction.

In passing it's worth noting that at one point in time someone on this board decided that it wasn't enough to discuss grain based liquors in a generic context. Thus the threads about Rye, Bourbon and Scotch.

PS...I can access Wikipedia too:

The NOM (Norma Oficial Mexicana) applies to all processes and activities related to the supply of agave, production, bottling, marketing, information and business practices linked to the distilled alcoholic beverage known as Tequila. Tequila must be produced using Agave of the species Tequilana Weber Blue variety, grown in the federal states and municipalities indicated in the Declaration.

(And yes, some mixtos can uses alcohol from other sources--grain alcohol...everclear, IOW, etc.--but as I understand it, if agave is used it must be blue agave)

Don Cenobio Sauza, founder of Sauza Tequila and Municipal President of the Village of Tequila from 1884–1885, was the first to export tequila to the United States,[7] and shortened the name from "Tequila Extract" to just "Tequila" for the American markets[citation needed]. Don Cenobio's grandson Don Francisco Javier gained international attention for insisting that "there cannot be tequila where there are no agaves!" His efforts led to the practice that real tequila can come only from the State of Jalisco.

--

 

[ama]



blah blah blah...
And, ultimately when you minimize/ trivialize the differences and the distinctions between, for instance, Japanese whiskey and Scotch whisky, you trivialize both.
And then nothing rises to the level of distinction.
blah blah blah...

Puh-lease.

Nearly every major whisky magazine, blog, retailer and connoisseur has long accepted that world whiskeys, especially Japanese scotch - style ones, can and should be discussed in the same breath as the liquids coming from the vaunted Glens of Scotland. Your shtick is tired. We all get it, Japanese whiskey isn't technically "scotch," blends aren't technically "scotch," the first edition of Spice Tree isn't technically "scotch," etc., but for our sakes move into the 21st century and join the rest of the whisk(e)y drinking world in welcoming these fine tipples. No one needs a wrap on the knuckles from you when they want to talk about their favorite Yamazaki or Yoichi in here.

 

[djblisk]



Puh-lease.
Nearly every major whisky magazine, blog, retailer and connoisseur has long accepted that world whiskeys, especially Japanese scotch - style ones, can and should be discussed in the same breath as the liquids coming from the vaunted Glens of Scotland. Your shtick is tired. We all get it, Japanese whiskey isn't technically "scotch," blends aren't technically "scotch," the first edition of Spice Tree isn't technically "scotch," etc., but for our sakes move into the 21st century and join the rest of the whisk(e)y drinking world in welcoming these fine tipples. No one needs a wrap on the knuckles from you when they want to talk about their favorite Yamazaki or Yoichi in here.

+1

 

[embowafa]



Puh-lease.
Nearly every major whisky magazine, blog, retailer and connoisseur has long accepted that world whiskeys, especially Japanese scotch - style ones, can and should be discussed in the same breath as the liquids coming from the vaunted Glens of Scotland. Your shtick is tired. We all get it, Japanese whiskey isn't technically "scotch," blends aren't technically "scotch," the first edition of Spice Tree isn't technically "scotch," etc., but for our sakes move into the 21st century and join the rest of the whisk(e)y drinking world in welcoming these fine tipples. No one needs a wrap on the knuckles from you when they want to talk about their favorite Yamazaki or Yoichi in here.

Nail on the head.

I get his point and appreciate the information for information's sake, but when you start going all Soup Nazi up in the thread it just comes across as a bit...

This is a thread with grown men talking about booze...I'd prefer it be as light hearted and welcoming as the subject matter.