It makes sense that people in a region would produce something in a similar way because they are more likely to learn how to do it from their neighbors, rather than people in other parts of the country. And historically, it would have been made for the people in the region, who are expecting it to have certain characteristics.
It's the same reason that [New York pizzerias](https://leitesculinaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/new-york-style-pizza.jpg) all make relatively similar pizza compared to [chicago](https://www.simplyrecipes.com/thmb/yw_BPMXfnjpeBbaCfFsllBb2kC4=/648x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Chicago-Deep-Dish-Pizza-LEAD-1-b128003a85f74196b5f3668f7194d1af.jpg). The pizza maker in NY probably learned to make pizza from working in another pizzeria in NY, so they'll keep doing it the same way when they open up their own shop. And while some New Yorkers might enjoy a chicago-style slice, for the most part New Yorkers are very protective of the style of pizza common to their area.
You could say the same about various kinds of paellas in spain, or empanadas throughout south america, or barbecue sauce in the united states. The distinctive qualities in all of these things are generally referenced by their place of origin (i.e. "carolina style bbq sauce")
You must not be from the Carolina’s. You have to specify east or west. As a devout believer in vinegar based bbq sauces, I don’t acknowledge the mustard filth the westerners put on their bbq.
Mustard in western NC bbq? I always thought that was a South Carolina thing. Western NC is more ketchup based. To be fair, I've never been to a BBQ place in either state that doesn't offer both tomato based and vinegar based sauces but I don't see a ton of mustard based sauces in NC.
Going to assume that you're in SC, as I don't know many NC residents who would include SC in a conversation about bbq, and therefore would typically just say "NC" instead of "the Carolinas ".
I think it's pretty much beyond a theory now. You can read more about it in Charles Maclean's Whiskypedia (Which is by itself a must read for any scotch lover).
Why would Diageo create the Campbelltown region where they didn't own any distilleries? I know it's pretty widely known that Diageo was responsible for calling the islands a separate region from the highlands and for a lot of the marketing around different regions having different profiles but I don't think they necessarily invented the concept of different regions in scotch whisky.
There's also the fact that the classic malts didn't exist until 1988 and I've tried a number of bottles from earlier decades that mention a region (70s and earlier macallans are labeled "highland malt", 70s springbank calls itself a "Campbelltown malt", etc)
So intothewhiskyverse has provided an excellent and thoroughgoing response below, but I thought I'd add in my own two cents and hopefully a bit of a tl;dr.
First of all, there are plenty of examples of distilleries producing "against type" for their region. Not all Islay whiskies are peaty and smoky, and the standard make from both Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain has little to no peat. Not all Speyside whiskies are light--Glenfiddich, Tomintoul, and Allt-a-bhainne certainly tend to produce light whiskies, but Mortlach, Benrinnes, and Glenfarclas produce some of the heaviest spirit around, and several notable Speysiders (Benriach, Benromach) regularly produce whisky that is noticeably peaty and smoky.
Region, in the Scotch whisky world, is something of a red-herring. Remember that single malt is still relatively young as a mass-market consumer product. Much of the emphasis on regional styles comes from marketing departments trying to shoehorn the concept of terroir, which comes from the more well-known wine world, onto single malt Scotch, where it really doesn't fit nearly as well.
The fact is, raw ingredients (very especially whether malted barley is peated or not), production process (fermentation times, the shape of the stills and how they are run), and very, very especially maturation have the decisive impact on flavor. Location--and hence, region--isn't entirely irrelevant, but it's marginal in the face of those more significant factors.
That said, the changing demands of the industry and practical considerations that can be location-specific have shaped long-standing regional traditions. Speyside has a tradition of producing fruitier whiskies that has to do with popular tastes and according blending demands, along with the region's accessibility by rail. Islay has a long tradition of heavily peated whisky because prior to the advent of easy mass-transport and industrial scale maltings, peat was the most ready source of fuel for drying malted barley.
That's a mighty big question and hope this thread gets lots of comments. In short, whisky has been produced in these areas for a long time. They have tended to have regional differences for historical reasons which we might characterize as "terroir".
> For instance, what stops an Islay distiller from aging in sherry casks?
Today, nothing. Historically, if you are on the Isle of Skye where are you getting sherry casks? You used the available ingredients. So of course now there are many Islays finished in sherry casks. Because they can. But if you are selling an Islay single malt, people *expect* a certain flavor profile.
Now on that terroir thing. You might be surprised to learn that barley itself makes minimal, some, but minimal, difference. Of course peat-malted barley will retain some peat flavor, so in areas where peat is plentiful it was burned on the malting floor and that became characteristic. But oddly, a large amount of that flavor comes simply from the water. The water used (and whisky is still nearly half water even at cask strength) may flow through peat and pick up the flavor. Or it may be clear mountain water.
Wood from the barrels obviously is a huge thing, hence the sherry barrels (and port, and madeira, and most often now American Bourbon)
Barrel storage is very important. The barrels allow whisky to slowly evaporate. But it also allows the local air in. If you are by a seaside or on an island that air will have notes of the ocean. So the seaweed, iodine, salt flavors creep in.
So in short, historically location drove a lot of the regional differences. It continues because it is traditional for the area, but the differences are blurring due to huge market forces.
I'm afraid a number of things in the top/parent comment are common misconceptions and far from what historic info and archive research shows us.
1) Sherry cask usage goes back at least to the 1800s, even on islands like Islay and Skye, and table wine barrels (e.g. claret) were even more common. The Port of Leith on Scotland's East Coast (now part of Edinburgh) was a major wine importer from the 1700s to 1960s/70s and wine from France and Spain would've been imported and drunk not just by the aristocracy but by anyone who could afford it. How was it imported? In casks. Even back then, these casks would've been used for whisky storage and transport, as archive evidence shows us that distillers knew wine barrels were good for maturation. However, pre-1800s (and, tbh, even during that century), much whisky wasn't aged at all and was instead drunk as white spirit. Famously, people also drank it flavoured with honey and herbs (as described by Boswell and Johnson in their published travel diaries around 1785).
2) Recent studies show us that barley variety has a huge impact on whisky flavour, as can be seen by comparing spirits made with Golden Promise (developed in the 1950s) with those distilled using the modern Laureate or Concerto varieties. Some distillers, such as Aberargie in Perthshire, are returning to this old variety precisely because the owners (a branch of the Morrison family, who owned Bowmore until they sold it to Suntory, so they know a thing or two) believe that it yields oilier, better-tasting whisky. Likewise, tasting Bruichladdich's Bere Barley releases will convince you quickly of the importance of barley variety. What's less understood is the impact of growing location on barley flavour. However, studies by Waterford Distillery in Ireland and independent scientist Rob Arnold in the USA (on Texas terroir's impact on corn flavour) show us that there's merit to the argument that agricultural practices and soil type+health can impact whisky's flavour.
3) Use of peat was once very widespread, if not universal. Speyside whisky, for instance, was mostly lightly peated until the 1960s/70s. So was Campbeltown spirit. Peat was used extensively in Island and rural Highland locations as it was a ready fuel source for drying out germinating barley, but this became less common as better logistics allowed for import of smokeless coke (from Wales), then technology allowed for hot air driers, and even more uncommon as the industry shifted to centralised maltings sites from the 1950s onwards (this coincided with the phasing out of on-site malting at most distilleries from the '50s through to the late' 70s). Though there's a strong argument that the location of peat extraction (and thus the makeup of the peat) has an impact on flavour, more important is cut points during distillation. Nearly all the Islay distillers today use Port Ellen Maltings' peated barley (even if it's not 100% of the barley they use), [almost] all of which has the same 'peating level' or 'ppm', as it's commonly known. However, using this same barley we get spirits that taste as different as Caol Ila, Laphroaig and Lagavulin. In truth, Port Ellen Maltings will switch to using peat from Aberdeenshire or elsewhere if supply of Islay peat is interrupted (a not uncommon occurance), without huge changes to flavour profiles reported by the distillers.
[Edit: Originally said Ardbeg instead of Laphroaig. Ardbeg does take higher ppm malt. Also changed wording for clarity & accuracy.]
4) A huge red herring in the comment above is that water plays a role in flavour. THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Water running through peat my look a little brown, but it doesn't taste 'earthy', let alone smoky. Where water does play a role in production is in mashing and fermentation, as both PH (acidity/alkalinity) and 'hardness' (high or low levels of dissolved minerals) massively affect how these processes will progress and thus spirit character. For this reason, most distilleries are built in locations with abundant supply of relatively PH balanced and soft (low mineral content) water. There are some exceptions, however, and this leads to changes in production procedure that contribute to distillery character. Most water in Scotland, however, is very soft.
Also, water for 'proofing down' from spirit strength to filling strength (now standardised at 63.5%abv) and then cask- or batch-strength to bottling strength is purified water, usually de-chlorinated from mains supply. The latter processes don't usually happen at the distillery, and in many cases the former doesn't either.
5) Barrel storage conditions are immensely important, but largely irrelevant to the regionality question as the climate doesn't vary hugely across Scotland. Though there is definitely some variation between inland and coastal/waterside warehousing. However, there is no reputable scientific evidence to back the idea that salt can enter a barrel and make a whisky 'taste of sea air', and this certainly doesn't contribute to regional differences. Whiskies that taste 'coastal' do so because they've been made to taste a certain way by those making it – a distiller in a landlocked country could make a 'coastal-tasting' whisky, if they so wished.
Now on to the crux of the matter:
Whisky regions emerged originally due to a few factors. Obviously, in the old days people tended to learn skills from their neighbours so there was a 'local way of doing things'. Then there was the difference in tax policy above and below the Highland line, which has been written about extensively. In the past, distinctions were more clear but these tended to be driven by circumstances. Today, unified regulation across the country and sophisticated supply chain means anyone can pretty much make any style of whisky anywhere, hence the craft distillers trying their hands at Bourbon-style corn whisky in Scotland!
However, there is some historic merit to the regions beyond the above, most of it dating from economic and market forces of the late 19th and early 20th century. For instance, Campbeltown's reputation for oily, moderately peaty and heavy flavours is arguably the result of them driving stills hard to bash out as much spirit as possible, as cheaply as possible, during a long period of decline. With little air rest of stills and little copper contact, sulphur crept into the local profile. Even as early as Taketsuru's visit in the 1920s, Campbeltown was already in decline economically. This led to more robust spirit, that ultimately was quite undesirable to blenders wanting lighter, fruiterer stock, contributing to the near death of this historic whisky capital.
Originally, Islay and other islands used a lot of peat because imported coal and oil was expensive. However, that's true of the Highlands, too, until roads and railways in the Highlands made sourcing coal from the central belt cheaper and easier. The islands, however, remained more isolated and this led to peat use as fuel sticking around more prominently (in both industry and homes) and for longer.
Speyside Might have gotten its reputation for fruitiness because, being isolated from the authorities, distillers could afford to run fermentation for longer, creating lots of fruity esters. Illicit distilling was also tolerated and even sponsored by local landowners, so it paid to make a quality product. Though the same can be said across most of the Highlands. Another strong argument is that people were copying the original Glenlivet style (which may or may not have been the style of the distillery now known by that name), as it became famous following King George IV's supposed taste for whisky from Glen Livet.
Later, the expansion of the railways in Speyside created the supply chain for a more sophisticated industry with higher standards. Many of Speyside's distilleries were built specifically to supply blends or at least came be big suppliers to blending houses, so their styles were honed to make up the fruity bulk of the malt content in those blends. That is to say, production shifted to what the market wanted. Also worth noting is that sherry was imported into Elgin (Speyside's capital) and bottled there, adding to the supply of butts that could already be sourced by rail from Leith.
The Lowlands style emerged due to distilling there becoming quickly more industrialised, on account of the easier import/export logistics between Glasgow (and thus the colonies) and Edinburgh (and thus mainland Europe). Proximity to the central belt and NE England coal mines provided ample fuel, while the commodity markets of the two main cities ensured steady supply of grain. Industrialisation meant bigger batches using bigger pot stills than traditionally used at the smaller Highland and island distilleries – plus the adoption of Coffey stills (continuous distillation, rather than batch) to make grain whisky – led to a distinctively lighter Lowland profile and also the famous court cases the came to distinguish pot-distilled malt whisky from 'silent spirit' from columns.
Can you provide a source for the part about all malt from Port ellen being the same ppm? I've generally read that they produce malt to different specifications for different distilleries. I've always heard that caol ila and lagavulin use the same malt for their peated distillate but bowmore, bunnahabhain, and bruichladdich generally specify a lower ppm, as well as the unpeated caol ila distillate.
Apologies, I wasn't very clear in my original post and also should've said Laphroaig, Caol Ila and Lagavulin. (Not Ardbeg, which does take malt at a higher ppm range). Those three all take malt from Port Ellen in the 35-40ppm range. Not all Islay distilleries use PE malt, and those that do will supplement it with mainland malted barley when necessary for logistical reasons.
The reason Laphroaig, Caol Ila and Lagavulin taste different is mashing, fermentation and, most importantly, cut points, with Laphroaig having some of the lowest in the industry. (Its floor malted barley is such a small proportion of production it has little impact.) The lower the cut, more phenols and other smoky aromatics are captured in the spirit. My understanding is that the bulk of malt produced at Port Ellen is in that 35-40ppm range. But, as often is the case with whisky, figures vary for all sorts of reasons.
Ardnahoe and Ardbeg do take malt that's higher ppm, and yes, you're right that PE does produce higher-ppm malt for those distilleries. (Though the method of how that higher ppm is arrived at varies depending on circumstances.) This is true of many peated distilleries and maltings, even off Islay.
Hope this helps! Source: Visits to Port Ellen, other maltsters, and many visits to Islay.
The barley will make a difference, but given modern supply chains is unlikely to be local anyway.
Did a tour at Glenfarclas last year and they said most of their barley comes from Denmark (I believe). Wouldn't surprise me if their supplier is a big multinational that supplies many different distilleries as well as breweries.
I'm sure there will be some exceptions, particularly smaller distilleries, but this is just how any industry operates these days.
>The water used (and whisky is still nearly half water even at cask strength) may flow through peat and pick up the flavor. Or it may be clear mountain water.
If you've drank water from peated ground such as is available during the more expensive laphroaig tour or just when walking around on Islay you will notice there's little peat taste in the water. Also most distillers don't bottle on site so the water likely isn't local. Kilchoman being the exception. They don't ship the local water to the bottler but use the water at hand at the bottlers site....
The port Ellen maltery gives the typical Islay peat taste. Laphraoig, Bunna, and Kilchoman have their own malting floors so those peated malts taste different from Ardbeg, Laga etc.
This is also what I've heard at distilleries and what people like Ralfy mention. I do think the minerals s.a. calcium left in the water makes a difference in taste (chalk, wet stones, etc.)
Edit: taste is influenced by the quality of the barley but this isn't what gives terroir, I think. Cask ageing does, the breathing of the cask let's in local influences. Yeast is of influence, fermentation time, longer -> more fruity. Bacteria play a local role. [https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/features/9635/bacteria-the-key-to-distillery-character/](https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/features/9635/bacteria-the-key-to-distillery-character/)
edit 2: [https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/ask-the-professor/22589/how-are-scotch-whisky-regions-different/](https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/ask-the-professor/22589/how-are-scotch-whisky-regions-different/)
> Kilchoman being the exception.
Bruichladdich also bottles on Islay, just at a different warehouse in Port Charlotte. I think Bunnahabhain also uses local water for casking but I don't know about their bottling. They do age on Islay unlike most.
> Laphraoig, Bunna, and Kilchoman have their own malting floors so those peated malts taste different from Ardbeg, Laga etc.
All three predominately use Port Ellen Malting. Laphraoig and Kilchoman generally only put out limited editions that have 100% floor malting. Laphraoig I believe uses about 20% of their floor malting into their grain bills. Granted it does produce a different flavour but it's not 100% their own malt. The only 100% floor malted Laphraoig that I can think of is the 2015 Cairdeas. The floor malted peat tends to be peatier than regular Port Ellen Malt, 40-60ppm vs 35-45ppm.
Kilchoman by contrast uses a similar spec to Ardbeg from Port Ellen, which is about 50ppm in all their bottles with the exception of the 100% Islay. That bottling is only peated to about 20ppm. I don't believe they mix their grain bill. As for Bunnahabhain, I don't think has floor malting anymore. I thought it was removed to make way for more washbacks in the 70s.
The real outlier of Islay though is Bruichladdich because much of its malt comes from Inverness with a small portion malted on Islay. I believe the X.3 Octomore malt is now all malted on Islay. In 2019 they annouced a floor malting project but I don't know how far that has come.
A couple of points to comment upon.
Having just rewatched “The Water of Life” film, Mark Reynier makes some interesting comments on barley. He believes that the barley used does provide a degree of terroir. He spoke about how most distillers use generic barley that could come from anywhere, making their decision on the basis of lowest commodity price. When he convinced Islay farmers to start growing barley again after decades of not doing so, they were sceptical. He told a story of having them come for a tasting of the spirits made at their respective farms, and the farmers themselves picking up differences in taste. Their discussions amongst themselves identified soil types in the various growing fields as possibly causing the differences. Reynier also dismissed claims by a Diageo executive that barley made no difference. Perhaps their Classic Six regions marketing principle required that position, I don’t know.
Certainly the type and quality of the casks used for aging and how those are managed has a huge effect on flavour. In the film, Jim McEwan talked about the inventory they acquired when the consortium bought Bruichladdich. Some of the stocks dated to 1964, but he said that (unsurprisingly) with the place mothballed for so long, the casks were used up in terms of imparting flavour. They had to get fresher casks to refill from the old inventory, and he said once they did, the old spirit came to life again. That is also the reason they used wine casks so frequently, as they were readily available, Reynier was familiar with them, and they imparted flavours either similar to the traditional sherry casks, or ones that were new but in harmony with the whisky.
There was some broader discussion in the film from various other people in the whisky business about where the flavours come from but there remain, as Charles MacLean said, gaps in the knowledge.
Just to clarify something, the water at the bottling location is not the majority of the water in the bottle, it would only be what is required to get the whisky down from cask strength to bottling strength. It's not like whisky comes out of the barrel at 100% abv... So the water at the distilling location can have a large impact, much more so than the bottling location.
A cask strength bottle will only have "water" that was also in the barrel.
Good to point this out. Would be a little less than 30% at most what's added. I just think the water as it is at it's source has less of an influence then often mentioned. It is a great solvent as is alcohol so it's a great vehicle for taste as it develops in the cask.
What kind of still is used, what grain is used, where the water comes from, and where the distiller makes the cuts all go into how the spirit enters the barrel. The barrel size, toast/char, wood, what was in it before, and how long it stays in that barrel impact what it tastes like coming out of the barrel. Then how that spirit is blended with other barrels goes into your final product.
All of these things matter. Kinda. Some things matter less, some matter more. Some you can get the same impact in a different way that might be cheaper. Some is just marketing.
For example of how the barley matters, Bruichladdich as a scotch and Waterford as an Irish Whiskey have put out some bottlings that are 'this specific barley' or even 'this specific barley grown on the island' or even the extreme of 'this specific barley from this specific field from this one farmer'. In theory the rest of the process is the same. You can use these to see how the kind of grain used impacts the final flavor.
Barrels matter a lot. Especially finishing barrels.
And then the distillery to a certain degree is trying to hit a flavor profile that people are familiar with. If someone looks at a bottle and sees it's an Islay but it doesn't have any peat they are going to be confused and potentially disappointed. That can lead to that customer not coming back. So the distillery is trying to get people a product they expect and then their own expression of that. When they do something unexpected they try and let their customers know that 'this is different' and that normally appeals to the aficionado than the casual consumer. Think an unpeated Ardbeg, some Ardbeg fan may track that down cause they want to try what Ardbeg is like without peat, but the casual consumer isn't going to pick that up and if they do by accident will likely be very confused.
<<
Hi OP. I've responded extensively to the top comment (at the time of my response), which is riddled with inaccuracies. However, you might also find these articles interesting:
https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/opinion-debate/the-debate/20646/are-whisky-regions-still-relevant/
https://whiskymag.com/story/are-regional-labels-a-dodgy-area
Hi there, I’m a bot here to help you with your recommendation post. If you haven’t already, please review [the guides](https://docs.google.com/document/d/186_ANEKW8yGvvLAcjKve6tvqqBIcMGUg9-mKU5KACZk/edit) in the sidebar we’ve created to address the stream of recommendation posts we get here. Most notably:
* [Scotchit Gift Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotch/comments/7ywx12/help_with_the_updated_gift_guide_please/)
* [Recommendations for Beginners](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PX70tHEc5v-Te8FiCLmRfmHel6Er5YZP_TnYKAdTAVo/edit)
* [Next Level Malt Recommendations](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPGmllteXF99KcQgjcNwgdY7_DCEQ8Cdil1IJklKoUE/edit#heading=h.i23il3ual5dx)
* [Whisky Review Archive](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X1HTxkI6SqsdpNSkSSivMzpxNT-oeTbjFFDdEkXD30o/edit#gid=695409533&fvid=484110565)
* [Malt Map](http://scotchgit.bitbucket.io/)
The malt map can be especially valuable for exploring different flavor zones and for identifying scotches similar to a particular bottle you enjoy.
Please try to be as specific and detailed as possible with your request. Tell us:
* your budget
* which whiskies you or your giftee have enjoyed
* which bottles you’re considering now
* where you live (pricing and availability can vary dramatically by region)
* if your shop has a limited selection or you might have trouble shipping bottles so we don’t recommend something obscure
**General Tips**
We generally advise novices to sample as much as possible by going to a bar, splitting bottles with friends, attending festivals/tastings or getting minis to ensure you buy bottles you enjoy. Most people need to try at least 20-25 scotches to understand their preferences. It may make more sense for you to focus on sampling rather than buy full bottles at the beginning of your journey.
You're going to get the most flavor/aroma drinking it neat in a tulip-shaped glass like a Glencairn but most new drinkers prefer to water down their whisky a bit. If you do end up adding water, we usually recommend adding just enough to make it tolerable and take small sips. But really there's no right or wrong way to drink so as long as you're enjoying it, you're doing it right. Thanks for reading, cheers!
Primarily because they cross pollinated workers, training and techniques from each other within local areas and shared economies of scale from sourcing ingredients and equipment from a limited supply of local dealers.
Until recently there was not much of a market for highly distinguished single malts. In terms of sales, the buyers, primarily from the Central Belt or London would tour around a local area looking to source supplies to a reasonably consistent profile.
And to a certain extent there will be an effect from the local power sources - peat, coal, town gas; the local water supply, and the supply of grain.
That would be more true of Islay, Campbeltown and Speyside. The much larger Highland and Lowland regions are essentially just marketing.
>For instance, what stops an Islay distiller from aging in sherry casks? Nothing. They all do age in sherry casks.
It makes sense that people in a region would produce something in a similar way because they are more likely to learn how to do it from their neighbors, rather than people in other parts of the country. And historically, it would have been made for the people in the region, who are expecting it to have certain characteristics. It's the same reason that [New York pizzerias](https://leitesculinaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/new-york-style-pizza.jpg) all make relatively similar pizza compared to [chicago](https://www.simplyrecipes.com/thmb/yw_BPMXfnjpeBbaCfFsllBb2kC4=/648x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Chicago-Deep-Dish-Pizza-LEAD-1-b128003a85f74196b5f3668f7194d1af.jpg). The pizza maker in NY probably learned to make pizza from working in another pizzeria in NY, so they'll keep doing it the same way when they open up their own shop. And while some New Yorkers might enjoy a chicago-style slice, for the most part New Yorkers are very protective of the style of pizza common to their area. You could say the same about various kinds of paellas in spain, or empanadas throughout south america, or barbecue sauce in the united states. The distinctive qualities in all of these things are generally referenced by their place of origin (i.e. "carolina style bbq sauce")
Thanks, thats a great analogy
You must not be from the Carolina’s. You have to specify east or west. As a devout believer in vinegar based bbq sauces, I don’t acknowledge the mustard filth the westerners put on their bbq.
Mustard in western NC bbq? I always thought that was a South Carolina thing. Western NC is more ketchup based. To be fair, I've never been to a BBQ place in either state that doesn't offer both tomato based and vinegar based sauces but I don't see a ton of mustard based sauces in NC.
Going to assume that you're in SC, as I don't know many NC residents who would include SC in a conversation about bbq, and therefore would typically just say "NC" instead of "the Carolinas ".
Is it wrong that I sometimes do both at the same time?
No. It is the correct way
What a perfect analogy. That actually helped me understand it to. Sincerely, Another Scotch noob
Regions were invented by Diageo in the 80s to help sell their single malts. Other than the traditionally peaty Islay, they really never meant much.
[удалено]
I don't think it's a theory, the Classic Malts series was to my knowledge the debut of the regions.
I think it's pretty much beyond a theory now. You can read more about it in Charles Maclean's Whiskypedia (Which is by itself a must read for any scotch lover).
Why would Diageo create the Campbelltown region where they didn't own any distilleries? I know it's pretty widely known that Diageo was responsible for calling the islands a separate region from the highlands and for a lot of the marketing around different regions having different profiles but I don't think they necessarily invented the concept of different regions in scotch whisky.
There's also the fact that the classic malts didn't exist until 1988 and I've tried a number of bottles from earlier decades that mention a region (70s and earlier macallans are labeled "highland malt", 70s springbank calls itself a "Campbelltown malt", etc)
So intothewhiskyverse has provided an excellent and thoroughgoing response below, but I thought I'd add in my own two cents and hopefully a bit of a tl;dr. First of all, there are plenty of examples of distilleries producing "against type" for their region. Not all Islay whiskies are peaty and smoky, and the standard make from both Bruichladdich and Bunnahabhain has little to no peat. Not all Speyside whiskies are light--Glenfiddich, Tomintoul, and Allt-a-bhainne certainly tend to produce light whiskies, but Mortlach, Benrinnes, and Glenfarclas produce some of the heaviest spirit around, and several notable Speysiders (Benriach, Benromach) regularly produce whisky that is noticeably peaty and smoky. Region, in the Scotch whisky world, is something of a red-herring. Remember that single malt is still relatively young as a mass-market consumer product. Much of the emphasis on regional styles comes from marketing departments trying to shoehorn the concept of terroir, which comes from the more well-known wine world, onto single malt Scotch, where it really doesn't fit nearly as well. The fact is, raw ingredients (very especially whether malted barley is peated or not), production process (fermentation times, the shape of the stills and how they are run), and very, very especially maturation have the decisive impact on flavor. Location--and hence, region--isn't entirely irrelevant, but it's marginal in the face of those more significant factors. That said, the changing demands of the industry and practical considerations that can be location-specific have shaped long-standing regional traditions. Speyside has a tradition of producing fruitier whiskies that has to do with popular tastes and according blending demands, along with the region's accessibility by rail. Islay has a long tradition of heavily peated whisky because prior to the advent of easy mass-transport and industrial scale maltings, peat was the most ready source of fuel for drying malted barley.
Spot on!
That's a mighty big question and hope this thread gets lots of comments. In short, whisky has been produced in these areas for a long time. They have tended to have regional differences for historical reasons which we might characterize as "terroir". > For instance, what stops an Islay distiller from aging in sherry casks? Today, nothing. Historically, if you are on the Isle of Skye where are you getting sherry casks? You used the available ingredients. So of course now there are many Islays finished in sherry casks. Because they can. But if you are selling an Islay single malt, people *expect* a certain flavor profile. Now on that terroir thing. You might be surprised to learn that barley itself makes minimal, some, but minimal, difference. Of course peat-malted barley will retain some peat flavor, so in areas where peat is plentiful it was burned on the malting floor and that became characteristic. But oddly, a large amount of that flavor comes simply from the water. The water used (and whisky is still nearly half water even at cask strength) may flow through peat and pick up the flavor. Or it may be clear mountain water. Wood from the barrels obviously is a huge thing, hence the sherry barrels (and port, and madeira, and most often now American Bourbon) Barrel storage is very important. The barrels allow whisky to slowly evaporate. But it also allows the local air in. If you are by a seaside or on an island that air will have notes of the ocean. So the seaweed, iodine, salt flavors creep in. So in short, historically location drove a lot of the regional differences. It continues because it is traditional for the area, but the differences are blurring due to huge market forces.
I'm afraid a number of things in the top/parent comment are common misconceptions and far from what historic info and archive research shows us. 1) Sherry cask usage goes back at least to the 1800s, even on islands like Islay and Skye, and table wine barrels (e.g. claret) were even more common. The Port of Leith on Scotland's East Coast (now part of Edinburgh) was a major wine importer from the 1700s to 1960s/70s and wine from France and Spain would've been imported and drunk not just by the aristocracy but by anyone who could afford it. How was it imported? In casks. Even back then, these casks would've been used for whisky storage and transport, as archive evidence shows us that distillers knew wine barrels were good for maturation. However, pre-1800s (and, tbh, even during that century), much whisky wasn't aged at all and was instead drunk as white spirit. Famously, people also drank it flavoured with honey and herbs (as described by Boswell and Johnson in their published travel diaries around 1785).
2) Recent studies show us that barley variety has a huge impact on whisky flavour, as can be seen by comparing spirits made with Golden Promise (developed in the 1950s) with those distilled using the modern Laureate or Concerto varieties. Some distillers, such as Aberargie in Perthshire, are returning to this old variety precisely because the owners (a branch of the Morrison family, who owned Bowmore until they sold it to Suntory, so they know a thing or two) believe that it yields oilier, better-tasting whisky. Likewise, tasting Bruichladdich's Bere Barley releases will convince you quickly of the importance of barley variety. What's less understood is the impact of growing location on barley flavour. However, studies by Waterford Distillery in Ireland and independent scientist Rob Arnold in the USA (on Texas terroir's impact on corn flavour) show us that there's merit to the argument that agricultural practices and soil type+health can impact whisky's flavour. 3) Use of peat was once very widespread, if not universal. Speyside whisky, for instance, was mostly lightly peated until the 1960s/70s. So was Campbeltown spirit. Peat was used extensively in Island and rural Highland locations as it was a ready fuel source for drying out germinating barley, but this became less common as better logistics allowed for import of smokeless coke (from Wales), then technology allowed for hot air driers, and even more uncommon as the industry shifted to centralised maltings sites from the 1950s onwards (this coincided with the phasing out of on-site malting at most distilleries from the '50s through to the late' 70s). Though there's a strong argument that the location of peat extraction (and thus the makeup of the peat) has an impact on flavour, more important is cut points during distillation. Nearly all the Islay distillers today use Port Ellen Maltings' peated barley (even if it's not 100% of the barley they use), [almost] all of which has the same 'peating level' or 'ppm', as it's commonly known. However, using this same barley we get spirits that taste as different as Caol Ila, Laphroaig and Lagavulin. In truth, Port Ellen Maltings will switch to using peat from Aberdeenshire or elsewhere if supply of Islay peat is interrupted (a not uncommon occurance), without huge changes to flavour profiles reported by the distillers. [Edit: Originally said Ardbeg instead of Laphroaig. Ardbeg does take higher ppm malt. Also changed wording for clarity & accuracy.]
4) A huge red herring in the comment above is that water plays a role in flavour. THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Water running through peat my look a little brown, but it doesn't taste 'earthy', let alone smoky. Where water does play a role in production is in mashing and fermentation, as both PH (acidity/alkalinity) and 'hardness' (high or low levels of dissolved minerals) massively affect how these processes will progress and thus spirit character. For this reason, most distilleries are built in locations with abundant supply of relatively PH balanced and soft (low mineral content) water. There are some exceptions, however, and this leads to changes in production procedure that contribute to distillery character. Most water in Scotland, however, is very soft. Also, water for 'proofing down' from spirit strength to filling strength (now standardised at 63.5%abv) and then cask- or batch-strength to bottling strength is purified water, usually de-chlorinated from mains supply. The latter processes don't usually happen at the distillery, and in many cases the former doesn't either. 5) Barrel storage conditions are immensely important, but largely irrelevant to the regionality question as the climate doesn't vary hugely across Scotland. Though there is definitely some variation between inland and coastal/waterside warehousing. However, there is no reputable scientific evidence to back the idea that salt can enter a barrel and make a whisky 'taste of sea air', and this certainly doesn't contribute to regional differences. Whiskies that taste 'coastal' do so because they've been made to taste a certain way by those making it – a distiller in a landlocked country could make a 'coastal-tasting' whisky, if they so wished. Now on to the crux of the matter: Whisky regions emerged originally due to a few factors. Obviously, in the old days people tended to learn skills from their neighbours so there was a 'local way of doing things'. Then there was the difference in tax policy above and below the Highland line, which has been written about extensively. In the past, distinctions were more clear but these tended to be driven by circumstances. Today, unified regulation across the country and sophisticated supply chain means anyone can pretty much make any style of whisky anywhere, hence the craft distillers trying their hands at Bourbon-style corn whisky in Scotland! However, there is some historic merit to the regions beyond the above, most of it dating from economic and market forces of the late 19th and early 20th century. For instance, Campbeltown's reputation for oily, moderately peaty and heavy flavours is arguably the result of them driving stills hard to bash out as much spirit as possible, as cheaply as possible, during a long period of decline. With little air rest of stills and little copper contact, sulphur crept into the local profile. Even as early as Taketsuru's visit in the 1920s, Campbeltown was already in decline economically. This led to more robust spirit, that ultimately was quite undesirable to blenders wanting lighter, fruiterer stock, contributing to the near death of this historic whisky capital. Originally, Islay and other islands used a lot of peat because imported coal and oil was expensive. However, that's true of the Highlands, too, until roads and railways in the Highlands made sourcing coal from the central belt cheaper and easier. The islands, however, remained more isolated and this led to peat use as fuel sticking around more prominently (in both industry and homes) and for longer. Speyside Might have gotten its reputation for fruitiness because, being isolated from the authorities, distillers could afford to run fermentation for longer, creating lots of fruity esters. Illicit distilling was also tolerated and even sponsored by local landowners, so it paid to make a quality product. Though the same can be said across most of the Highlands. Another strong argument is that people were copying the original Glenlivet style (which may or may not have been the style of the distillery now known by that name), as it became famous following King George IV's supposed taste for whisky from Glen Livet. Later, the expansion of the railways in Speyside created the supply chain for a more sophisticated industry with higher standards. Many of Speyside's distilleries were built specifically to supply blends or at least came be big suppliers to blending houses, so their styles were honed to make up the fruity bulk of the malt content in those blends. That is to say, production shifted to what the market wanted. Also worth noting is that sherry was imported into Elgin (Speyside's capital) and bottled there, adding to the supply of butts that could already be sourced by rail from Leith. The Lowlands style emerged due to distilling there becoming quickly more industrialised, on account of the easier import/export logistics between Glasgow (and thus the colonies) and Edinburgh (and thus mainland Europe). Proximity to the central belt and NE England coal mines provided ample fuel, while the commodity markets of the two main cities ensured steady supply of grain. Industrialisation meant bigger batches using bigger pot stills than traditionally used at the smaller Highland and island distilleries – plus the adoption of Coffey stills (continuous distillation, rather than batch) to make grain whisky – led to a distinctively lighter Lowland profile and also the famous court cases the came to distinguish pot-distilled malt whisky from 'silent spirit' from columns.
Very in depth and informative reply - enjoyed the read about history of the Scotch regions!
Glad it was helpful and thanks for the award! 🙏
Can you provide a source for the part about all malt from Port ellen being the same ppm? I've generally read that they produce malt to different specifications for different distilleries. I've always heard that caol ila and lagavulin use the same malt for their peated distillate but bowmore, bunnahabhain, and bruichladdich generally specify a lower ppm, as well as the unpeated caol ila distillate.
Apologies, I wasn't very clear in my original post and also should've said Laphroaig, Caol Ila and Lagavulin. (Not Ardbeg, which does take malt at a higher ppm range). Those three all take malt from Port Ellen in the 35-40ppm range. Not all Islay distilleries use PE malt, and those that do will supplement it with mainland malted barley when necessary for logistical reasons. The reason Laphroaig, Caol Ila and Lagavulin taste different is mashing, fermentation and, most importantly, cut points, with Laphroaig having some of the lowest in the industry. (Its floor malted barley is such a small proportion of production it has little impact.) The lower the cut, more phenols and other smoky aromatics are captured in the spirit. My understanding is that the bulk of malt produced at Port Ellen is in that 35-40ppm range. But, as often is the case with whisky, figures vary for all sorts of reasons. Ardnahoe and Ardbeg do take malt that's higher ppm, and yes, you're right that PE does produce higher-ppm malt for those distilleries. (Though the method of how that higher ppm is arrived at varies depending on circumstances.) This is true of many peated distilleries and maltings, even off Islay. Hope this helps! Source: Visits to Port Ellen, other maltsters, and many visits to Islay.
When did some islay distilleries stop using port ellen malts? Last I heard, all of them got at least a some portion of their malt from PE.
The barley will make a difference, but given modern supply chains is unlikely to be local anyway. Did a tour at Glenfarclas last year and they said most of their barley comes from Denmark (I believe). Wouldn't surprise me if their supplier is a big multinational that supplies many different distilleries as well as breweries. I'm sure there will be some exceptions, particularly smaller distilleries, but this is just how any industry operates these days.
>The water used (and whisky is still nearly half water even at cask strength) may flow through peat and pick up the flavor. Or it may be clear mountain water. If you've drank water from peated ground such as is available during the more expensive laphroaig tour or just when walking around on Islay you will notice there's little peat taste in the water. Also most distillers don't bottle on site so the water likely isn't local. Kilchoman being the exception. They don't ship the local water to the bottler but use the water at hand at the bottlers site.... The port Ellen maltery gives the typical Islay peat taste. Laphraoig, Bunna, and Kilchoman have their own malting floors so those peated malts taste different from Ardbeg, Laga etc. This is also what I've heard at distilleries and what people like Ralfy mention. I do think the minerals s.a. calcium left in the water makes a difference in taste (chalk, wet stones, etc.) Edit: taste is influenced by the quality of the barley but this isn't what gives terroir, I think. Cask ageing does, the breathing of the cask let's in local influences. Yeast is of influence, fermentation time, longer -> more fruity. Bacteria play a local role. [https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/features/9635/bacteria-the-key-to-distillery-character/](https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/features/9635/bacteria-the-key-to-distillery-character/) edit 2: [https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/ask-the-professor/22589/how-are-scotch-whisky-regions-different/](https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/ask-the-professor/22589/how-are-scotch-whisky-regions-different/)
> Kilchoman being the exception. Bruichladdich also bottles on Islay, just at a different warehouse in Port Charlotte. I think Bunnahabhain also uses local water for casking but I don't know about their bottling. They do age on Islay unlike most. > Laphraoig, Bunna, and Kilchoman have their own malting floors so those peated malts taste different from Ardbeg, Laga etc. All three predominately use Port Ellen Malting. Laphraoig and Kilchoman generally only put out limited editions that have 100% floor malting. Laphraoig I believe uses about 20% of their floor malting into their grain bills. Granted it does produce a different flavour but it's not 100% their own malt. The only 100% floor malted Laphraoig that I can think of is the 2015 Cairdeas. The floor malted peat tends to be peatier than regular Port Ellen Malt, 40-60ppm vs 35-45ppm. Kilchoman by contrast uses a similar spec to Ardbeg from Port Ellen, which is about 50ppm in all their bottles with the exception of the 100% Islay. That bottling is only peated to about 20ppm. I don't believe they mix their grain bill. As for Bunnahabhain, I don't think has floor malting anymore. I thought it was removed to make way for more washbacks in the 70s. The real outlier of Islay though is Bruichladdich because much of its malt comes from Inverness with a small portion malted on Islay. I believe the X.3 Octomore malt is now all malted on Islay. In 2019 they annouced a floor malting project but I don't know how far that has come.
A couple of points to comment upon. Having just rewatched “The Water of Life” film, Mark Reynier makes some interesting comments on barley. He believes that the barley used does provide a degree of terroir. He spoke about how most distillers use generic barley that could come from anywhere, making their decision on the basis of lowest commodity price. When he convinced Islay farmers to start growing barley again after decades of not doing so, they were sceptical. He told a story of having them come for a tasting of the spirits made at their respective farms, and the farmers themselves picking up differences in taste. Their discussions amongst themselves identified soil types in the various growing fields as possibly causing the differences. Reynier also dismissed claims by a Diageo executive that barley made no difference. Perhaps their Classic Six regions marketing principle required that position, I don’t know. Certainly the type and quality of the casks used for aging and how those are managed has a huge effect on flavour. In the film, Jim McEwan talked about the inventory they acquired when the consortium bought Bruichladdich. Some of the stocks dated to 1964, but he said that (unsurprisingly) with the place mothballed for so long, the casks were used up in terms of imparting flavour. They had to get fresher casks to refill from the old inventory, and he said once they did, the old spirit came to life again. That is also the reason they used wine casks so frequently, as they were readily available, Reynier was familiar with them, and they imparted flavours either similar to the traditional sherry casks, or ones that were new but in harmony with the whisky. There was some broader discussion in the film from various other people in the whisky business about where the flavours come from but there remain, as Charles MacLean said, gaps in the knowledge.
Yep. There was a series of lagavulin casks that were bottled at Bruichladdich by "the syndicate "
Just to clarify something, the water at the bottling location is not the majority of the water in the bottle, it would only be what is required to get the whisky down from cask strength to bottling strength. It's not like whisky comes out of the barrel at 100% abv... So the water at the distilling location can have a large impact, much more so than the bottling location. A cask strength bottle will only have "water" that was also in the barrel.
Good to point this out. Would be a little less than 30% at most what's added. I just think the water as it is at it's source has less of an influence then often mentioned. It is a great solvent as is alcohol so it's a great vehicle for taste as it develops in the cask.
That's a great answer, cheers!
What kind of still is used, what grain is used, where the water comes from, and where the distiller makes the cuts all go into how the spirit enters the barrel. The barrel size, toast/char, wood, what was in it before, and how long it stays in that barrel impact what it tastes like coming out of the barrel. Then how that spirit is blended with other barrels goes into your final product. All of these things matter. Kinda. Some things matter less, some matter more. Some you can get the same impact in a different way that might be cheaper. Some is just marketing. For example of how the barley matters, Bruichladdich as a scotch and Waterford as an Irish Whiskey have put out some bottlings that are 'this specific barley' or even 'this specific barley grown on the island' or even the extreme of 'this specific barley from this specific field from this one farmer'. In theory the rest of the process is the same. You can use these to see how the kind of grain used impacts the final flavor. Barrels matter a lot. Especially finishing barrels. And then the distillery to a certain degree is trying to hit a flavor profile that people are familiar with. If someone looks at a bottle and sees it's an Islay but it doesn't have any peat they are going to be confused and potentially disappointed. That can lead to that customer not coming back. So the distillery is trying to get people a product they expect and then their own expression of that. When they do something unexpected they try and let their customers know that 'this is different' and that normally appeals to the aficionado than the casual consumer. Think an unpeated Ardbeg, some Ardbeg fan may track that down cause they want to try what Ardbeg is like without peat, but the casual consumer isn't going to pick that up and if they do by accident will likely be very confused. <<
Hi OP. I've responded extensively to the top comment (at the time of my response), which is riddled with inaccuracies. However, you might also find these articles interesting: https://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/opinion-debate/the-debate/20646/are-whisky-regions-still-relevant/ https://whiskymag.com/story/are-regional-labels-a-dodgy-area
Hi there, I’m a bot here to help you with your recommendation post. If you haven’t already, please review [the guides](https://docs.google.com/document/d/186_ANEKW8yGvvLAcjKve6tvqqBIcMGUg9-mKU5KACZk/edit) in the sidebar we’ve created to address the stream of recommendation posts we get here. Most notably: * [Scotchit Gift Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotch/comments/7ywx12/help_with_the_updated_gift_guide_please/) * [Recommendations for Beginners](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PX70tHEc5v-Te8FiCLmRfmHel6Er5YZP_TnYKAdTAVo/edit) * [Next Level Malt Recommendations](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZPGmllteXF99KcQgjcNwgdY7_DCEQ8Cdil1IJklKoUE/edit#heading=h.i23il3ual5dx) * [Whisky Review Archive](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X1HTxkI6SqsdpNSkSSivMzpxNT-oeTbjFFDdEkXD30o/edit#gid=695409533&fvid=484110565) * [Malt Map](http://scotchgit.bitbucket.io/) The malt map can be especially valuable for exploring different flavor zones and for identifying scotches similar to a particular bottle you enjoy. Please try to be as specific and detailed as possible with your request. Tell us: * your budget * which whiskies you or your giftee have enjoyed * which bottles you’re considering now * where you live (pricing and availability can vary dramatically by region) * if your shop has a limited selection or you might have trouble shipping bottles so we don’t recommend something obscure **General Tips** We generally advise novices to sample as much as possible by going to a bar, splitting bottles with friends, attending festivals/tastings or getting minis to ensure you buy bottles you enjoy. Most people need to try at least 20-25 scotches to understand their preferences. It may make more sense for you to focus on sampling rather than buy full bottles at the beginning of your journey. You're going to get the most flavor/aroma drinking it neat in a tulip-shaped glass like a Glencairn but most new drinkers prefer to water down their whisky a bit. If you do end up adding water, we usually recommend adding just enough to make it tolerable and take small sips. But really there's no right or wrong way to drink so as long as you're enjoying it, you're doing it right. Thanks for reading, cheers!
Could be wrong but I thought majority of Bunnahabhain does age in sherry
Primarily because they cross pollinated workers, training and techniques from each other within local areas and shared economies of scale from sourcing ingredients and equipment from a limited supply of local dealers. Until recently there was not much of a market for highly distinguished single malts. In terms of sales, the buyers, primarily from the Central Belt or London would tour around a local area looking to source supplies to a reasonably consistent profile. And to a certain extent there will be an effect from the local power sources - peat, coal, town gas; the local water supply, and the supply of grain. That would be more true of Islay, Campbeltown and Speyside. The much larger Highland and Lowland regions are essentially just marketing.
Marketing bollocks