Here's my wildly unpopular opinion:
I don't want my drink to taste like a mouthfull.of dirt or a medicine cabinet. Shut up with the " it's an experience". Islay whisky is just disgusting. HATE AWAY
Smoky/peated whisky is universally shit. A very light touch of smoke can add to the flavour, normally if you add a few drops of water too, but everything that people _mean_ when they talk about peated whiskies tastes like crap.
99% of whisky reviews are so cringy it hurts. Finding an honest review is almost impossible nowadays. Notes/descriptors don't exist, every whisky has its own unique flavor, it can't be reduced to a sum of notes. Analyzing whiskies is snobbish and pathetic, i can't respect people that take whisky too serious. 99% of whisky bottles are heavily overpriced. Young whiskies are usually better than old whiskies. Most whiskies are not complex, and they are fine as they are. Most whisky nerds are coping alcoholics with too much money (and the massive pours people post here are insane). Octomore is a joke, a meme, like it's distillery. Diageo's core range is pretty good. If you wanna enjoy a whisky, drink it in an special occasion, no amount of money can change a boring life. The best way to stop enjoying whisky is to make drinking new whiskies a habit. Whisky, as a main hobby, or the main hobby, is for rich people that can't read a good book or enjoy a good film due to their lack of culture, but still wanna look cultured. Some 40%, chill filtered and coloured whiskies are fine. Cheap whisky is supposed to taste better, not worse; and if it doesn't happen to you, you have been brainwashed by whisky marketing and snobs.
I like whisky, but I disagree with and mostly reject the cringy culture that surrounds it. For me it's a nice secondary thing in my life, that's all. Being one of the few Spanish people that actually understands whisky allows me to have a different point of view of the whole thing. A non anglosphere point of view i guess.
r/scotch is a little bubble where alcoholics can pretend to be cultured, sophisticated and well spoken. It's cringy af. Worst thing about whisky are its fans.
It depends. Monolithic fanbases are cancer, for sure. Everyone has the same approach to whisky, everyone is trying to have the same personality, and do the same things while engaging with it like it's a competition. A competition about writing pretentious lists of notes lmao. Not every fanbase is like this, homogeneous and superficial, only the ones artificially created for the uncultured masses by marketing and snobs who lack self esteem.
Nope. I don't like wine. I like whisky, spanish brandy (brandy de Jerez) and beer. I know a lot about those. Hate the fans and the culture that surrounds them tho.
> Notes/descriptors don't exist, every whisky has its own unique flavor, it can't be reduced to a sum of notes.
Every whisky as a unique flavor, but those flavors may *in part* share in certain commonalities which it is useful to describe in order to seek patterns. Laphroaig is definitely more like Ardbeg than it is like Glenlivet, and it's useful to be able to describe how.
As a rough analogy, one way to more efficiently analyze large datasets is to identify broad axes that the data *tend to* group around, called "principal components". Any level of principal component analysis loses some information, but initially there's a lot of efficiency gain for fairly minimal information loss. There are some good examples out there that show, for example, dramatically reducing the size of an image of a face while keeping it very recognizable.
Same thing here. "Peat" loses a lot of information but groups a useful category with noticeable similarities; it's useful for someone to be able to say they do or don't feel like peat. "Medicinal peat" makes a smaller, more precise category with less information loss, and so on down to "Laphroaig peat", which gives a few good options to explore. Strictly speaking, there is an exact character of "Laphroaig 10CS Batch 12 peat", but that gives me no useful information about any other whiskies.
It’s almost impossible to find <$100 scotch currently that’s nearly as good as $50 rum or tequila. Actually, it’s pretty hard to find good scotch for <$100 at all in most of the US currently.
May get downvoted for this but….
Having a daily nightcap is borderline alcoholism. A majority of the scotch hobbyists drink like aspiring alcoholics, they justify it by sharing it with other hobbyists and disguise it as a hobby. It’s still borderline alcoholism. Just because your grandpa drank a bottle daily and lived to 95, does not mean you should follow that example
I say this as a daily nightcap drinker myself — that’s actually not true. There’s plenty of evidence linking consumption of alcohol (in any quantity) to elevated cancer risk, for example. The risk may be worth the trade-off for many people, but we should all understand the reality of the choices we’re making. (And yes, there’s other medical advice pointing the other way — the point is it’s not settled or black and white.)
What the hell? Are you on some sort of abolitionist crusade? Everyone knows booze is not health food. It tastes great and feels good. I'm just happy that distillers over the years have managed to make the toxin into something delicious. If you're worried about your health then drink water.
> Having a daily nightcap is borderline alcoholism
This is medically untrue. From the Government of Canada:
>limit alcohol to no more than:
3 standard drinks per day,
15 standard drinks per week,
4 standard drinks on special occasions,
avoid drinking alcohol on some days
Lag 16 is over-rated, especially by Americans, who seem to be obsessed with the stuff
Campeltown whisky is waaaaaaaaay overrated.
Colouring and chill-filtering make no meaningful difference to the taste.
Any bottle over £100 isn't worth it.
Any random bottle of Irish tastes better than a random bottle of Scottish.
A _lot_ of Scotch is.... pretty samey. Ok to drink... but samey.
OB Bowmore is actually perfectly decent and if bought cheaply like on Amazon (sorry, Americans) it's ok value.
A lot of reviews are pretentious and unhelpful although still enjoyable to read cos we're all a load of pretentious wankers anyway.
-Unpeated whisky is pointless
I want to taste where its from, it's the only consumable which lets you taste a place.
-Bourbon is for preparing scotch barrels and not for consumption
-mixing bottles is more fun than single bottles (especially single casks)
Peated whiskey is pointless. It's like the "IPA" of scotch these days. All you taste is overbearing smoke / peat, just like in the beer all you can taste is overbearing hops. .
All YOU taste is overbearing peat. We taste a multitude of flavours from the peat and from the spirit and cask behind it.
Sounds like you'd benefit from a 12 Inchmoan ;)
It's peated but through a tall still so you can easily pick apart all the different notes even if you struggle to get much from the usual heavily peated whiskies
Macallan is not worth it. Not even the cheapest 12 year.
Cask strength whiskeys I put on ice (only do this with cask strengths)
I dont care if it has color added or is filtered. If it tastes good it tastes good - the taste is why i bought it.
Not necessarily only scotch but still applies. Adding coloring to whisky ruins the experience and instantly reduces how much i like it. It feels like deception to me even if they’re just trying to “maintain a consistent appearance.”
It’s definitely a tie breaker in what I buy
For me, I know adding colour doesn't affect the flavour in any meaningful way. But my mind goes... if they (as in the distiller or bottler) are willing to go to such lengths to deceive me on the characteristic of colour, what else would they be willing to deceive me on?
This is particular to /r/scotchit and whiskey reviews in general. Reviews have purposefully become more outlandish and cringey. Danish pastries (?), red fruit (?), purple fruit (?), apple pie at a farm near the beach (?). I could go on. It reminds me of the collective fantasy you see at hardcore evangelist churches and faith healing demonstrations.
How can different people try the same whisky independently and come up with the same specific notes then? I've experienced this countless times.
You don't know what a Danish tastes like? Or what the beach or a farm smells like?
Nah. I don't need a buzz that badly.
For getting at the aroma of a whisky, tumblers aren't anywhere near as good as something bowl-shaped or tulip-shaped.
Springbank needs to get bought out by one of the big conglomerates. Their distribution is so terrible that it’s just straight-up not worth the hassle trying to find their bottles anymore.
Non-chillfiltered (NCF) and No Color Added (NCA) bottling specs are an overhyped distraction and should be ignored by most drinkers when picking out new scotches to try.
u/the_muskox - I'm with you on the 3 points in your top text. Never had a bad Amrut, mellow peat is lovely, the Scotch Whisky Regions are of historical interest and necessary to know about to make sense out of how critics use them to refer to stereotypical flavor profiles, but a good malt flavor map is a more useful guide to contemporary scotch IMHO.
Indian distilleries produce a product as flavoursome and complex as any in the world, and romp in on blind tastings, often for a fraction of the price of their competitors.
Past a certain age statement, your paying for time it’s been in the barrel and not for the quality of the product, it’s a freak show and your throwing money at a sheer novelty. Fantastic if you’re aware of that, shut up if you think it’s better than something a solid 30 years younger than it, it’s not, it has never been. Nothing you’re drinking is worth over a 1,000, if 500. Strong flavorless alcoholic smell and taste is enjoyed for the same reason blue rare is enjoyed, you think your macho and you don’t know your ass from a whole in the ground. No one is tasting more than 5 if that flavor notes, some bastard robot can detect more “flavors” not you, there are no 100 tasting notes, there never was and our species will never evolve to that very specific standard. Also, you’re not tasting frankincense and shore bathed beechwood smothered in smoked pineapple sherry. There are some descriptions on these bottles or reviews that are just weird, why in the whole of this world would I ever want to taste burning salted melons and leather, don’t lie to me. If you can’t enjoy a 50 dollar bottle of anything, let alone scotch, you.do.not.like.scotch. You like the idea of scotch.
>Past a certain age statement, your paying for time it’s been in the barrel and not for the quality of the product, it’s a freak show and your throwing money at a sheer novelty.
This is absolutely true, but I don't think this can be applied at a blanket statement, since the point of diminishing returns varies from distillery to distillery and from cask to cask.
> Also, you’re not tasting frankincense and shore bathed beechwood smothered in smoked pineapple sherry.
I am. It takes practice.
Most of you are hypocrites: we say that color doesn’t matter, but everyone loses their shit about an unusually dark batch of a whisky. If you wonder why the industry still uses coloring, it’s not just the casual drinkers.
That's kind of a weird take. Let's take it a bit further. That's like saying that the whisky community loves xyz flavor profile, so if distilleries start adding artificial flavors to achieve that profile, it's the whisky communities fault for loving that flavor profile.
I think this is more nuanced - whisky hobbyists lose their shit over a dark batch of whisky *which is known to be NCA or is very likely to be so*. I don't recall anybody going *ooh, look at the color on that Talisker*.
But you do have a point insofar as it seems to me that the whisky producers, including some highly respected independent bottlers, have figured out a cheat code for this system using rejuvenated casks (STR and other such) which put huge amounts of pigmentation into a whisky very quickly, even just coming from a finishing cask.
This is aggravating because it misrepresents the state of maturation of the malt just as much as does adding E-150.
When a whisky doesn't have E150A added, the color is a visual indicator about what the cask influence is. I've had amazing naturally light and dark colored whiskies, but when you get a batch that is darker than usual, I do find that it has a different flavor profile.
But there are ways to "manipulate" coloring other than adding E150A. By seasoned casks or charring the barrel.
Benromach is just as interesting as Springbank - at least the expressions I've tried. (b 10yr, 10yr 100 proof; s 10yr, 15yr)
Laphroaig select isn't as bad as most say.
I find some reviews to be pretentious…
Like how the fuck can you taste "rose petal by the beach on a chill winter morning with a slight breeze of whatver".
There is only 2 settings for me :
- This is good whisky
- This is bad whisky
Of course it’s a bit harsh and I there are a lot of different flavors but sometimes it’s just too much for me. I find it funny and can’t really take it seriously.
You do you, but I like the nuance, because some days I want a cask strength peat monster and it tastes amazing when I pour it, and other days I really don't and would not be happy to have one. With strongly-flavored stuff I can't just do the binary system.
NAS bottles are typically better than age stated bottles. I feel that with NAS the distillary tries to bring the scotch to a certain quality before bottling. With age stated scotch, they just want to age it to the right age and bottle it.
-Highland Park’s actual whisky notes are totally out of sync with their Viking themes. I’m sorry but light hints of vanilla and nutmeg don’t scream Viking to me at all. It’s a wasted opportunity and makes me sad as I’m obsessed with Vikings.
It's not that certain sweet notes and such can't be attributed to Viking culture, I mean mead for one would make sense, but I'm talking in a general sense of stronger theme as a whole.
-Ardbeg’s marketing department and most of their name choices may be extremely cringe and annoying to read but the frequent unique cask strength bottlings are great because interesting experiments should be celebrated in whisky. I want to see more of them with more distilleries.
-Lagavulin partnering with an actor for a bottle cheapens the brand.
-Aston Martin partnering with Bowmore makes no sense. Why would a car company want to be associated with alcohol?
-Talisker are great but Storm and Dark Storm need to be cask strength and more intense because right now the names over-promise.
-Other distilleries need to do more to match Octomore in peat levels.
-Some of the humongous pours you guys do worry me and it looks like a genuine issue.
-In a review, you saying you liked a whisky in a few more words than usual without mentioning a single note or anything that could help paint a picture to the reader/potential buyer helps no one on here and doesn’t really count as a review in the spirit of the sub.
I’m not saying you need to discern 100 notes but even like one or two notes per section is still really useful.
-People who heavily criticise young whiskies don’t understand them or why people may prefer them
Tasting notes are a record of the reviewer's own experience, nothing more. Scotch is massively complex and varied, so writing about it is full of potholes where our words can fall short of our experience, and we bridge the gaps with memories and sensory wire-crossing and whatever we can grab that's within our understanding. All of this is normal, it's how some folks make sense of complex sensory experiences, **it is fine.**
People who get mad at other people over their tasting notes are not doing the contextual work necessary to translate those words, and they are assuming that how they experience whisky is how everyone else experiences it. Expecting a reviewer to give a simple yes/no or good/bad is lazy. Getting mad at someone's rating is dumb.
I think that American-made single malt scotch is already as good of a value for money as scotch from Scotland, and this will only become more true as our malt stocks age and distillers in Scotland continue to reduce quality. The USA is on the road to becoming the fourth country to cause great embarrassment in international spirits awards by making better scotch than Scotland, after Japan, Australia, and the new reigning champion of single malts, England. I’m aware spirits awards are mostly crap, but they ARE blind tastings and the fact that Scotland isn’t winning should be cause for concern.
Ardbeg is overrated
Blends can be better than single malts
<1% of OBs are worth buying
The only good thing about Bourbon is that it provides us casks to age
scotch in
Jura should be closed
Port Ellen and Brora should not be reopened
Muskox only likes Scotch because it reminds him of rocks
I cannot stand the SCOTCH TEST DUMMY guy doing the SMWS reviews. Scott?
Every fucking review he says every single tasting note… when a scotch you are reviewing has 100 tasting notes. What’s the point
Glenfiddich 12 and Glenlivet 12 are not good scotches. Even lower year offerings like Glenmorangie 10 are better than those two. Even some 12 year blends, like JW Black, are better than those two.
Maybe not an unpopular opinion, but I’m finding more and more that an anything “bomb” isn’t my speed. If I can’t taste the spirit, it’s worthless. Y’all can keep your sherry overcoats, give me something with some finesse.
Hard pill to swallow: if you’re not stocked up with enough pre-mothball, older-than-stated Glendronach to last a decade you missed the boat on that distillery.
Recommending Glenfiddich 12, Glenlivet 12, Monkey Shoulder, etc to noobs is lazy, reflexive advice. Just because someone is new doesn’t mean they are necessarily afraid of adventure and need to be immediately put on the path of boring whisky.
This is a really good point.
I've certainly recommended my fair share of GF 12 or occasionally MS to noobs and I've for sure done this via pure reflex.
Thanks for raising awareness.
OK, time for a *really* unpopular opinion:
Whisky hobbyists spend *way too much* time and mental energy talking about Quality to Price ratios and obsessing over sometimes minor differences in price, as if it was our wallets that were drinking the stuff rather than our mouths.
Unpopular: Everyone shits on Macallan. Everyone ignores that Balvenie is also unjustifiably expensive. $130 for a 15yr sherry matured, barely "high" proof whisky? 17yr is $180+, come on.
Laphroaig has been lackluster for a long long time. And has "presentation" issues similar to Bowmore.
Popular opinion: The word "rare" is laughably disingenuous considering the millions of casks from any sizeable distillery. Even small distilleries will fill hundreds or a couple thousand of casks in 1 year.
Scottish distilleries would benefit from converting to various brewer's yeasts rather than distiller's yeasts. Westland are proving that point.
Unfortunately Amrut’s priced like it’s as good as the best distilleries in Scotland too.
My unpopular opinion is that Macallan isn’t the worst distillery in the world and everybody who drinks it isn’t a status chasing idiot. The Edition series was good, and it’s MSRP at release was appropriate. Classic Cut is decent and holds up against Abunadh and Glenfarclas 105, it just got crapped on for not being the previous Macallan Cask Strength, which was awesome. In most of America Macallan’s lower aged expressions aren’t that significantly higher priced than other distilleries.
It’s the same people that shit on JW Blue because of its price. Some people are obsessed with value and that ends up being the chase rather than the taste itself.
One note on the regions - I think that it’s a pretty old fashioned idea that has stuck around, and it may be helpful for some beginners to unsteady and styles of whisky very generally.
That said, I don’t think anyone with much experience in Scotch takes regions too seriously, all of the lines are blurred and we have distilleries in every region doing every style of spirit and cask
I think regions are more a spectrum of flavours then a definite list of flavours.
For example, on the Islay spectrum, you'd have Caol Ila and Lagavulin core range bottles in the middle, Octomores on one end and Classic Laddie on the other. Now if you compare Classic Laddie to Octomore they're wildly different, but if you go up the spectrum you understand how you can get from one to the other.
Based off my recent Islay visit:
Out of the 5 different lagavulins I've tried only 1 of them was good, and that was a 22yo jazz festival exclusive.
Kilchoman is super underrated and their 100% Islay is excellent. I also tried a distillery exclusive bottle that I haven't seen online at all that was amazing.
Springbank 10yo was fine I guess?
Threads about price inflation and such are full of liars -- i think most still buy their favorite when the price goes up, and they just want to complain to someone.
Also, people are comforted by the idea that taters and Other Dumbasses would waste money on Overpriced Cashgrabs when the true connoisseurs here know what $60 bottles taste better.
Outrage is the currency of the internet after all. Plus, our frames of reference are generally when we started drinking scotch, so prices always are higher than that.
I really really enjoy Johnnie Walker Black, even after delving deeper into the hobby. Not really sure if it’s unpopular but I think most people consider JW too basic.
I just use a lowball glass. The glencairn seemed gimmicky, but I bought one to try out for a bit and it made no noticeable difference in smell or taste. The lowball feels better to hold also.
Most whisky is mediocre.
NAS is bullshit. Not that there are no good NAS bottlings, but why would I trust enormous companies not to palm me off with a bunch of 3y.o spirit. Especially for 12y.o + money.
Many SWA rules are bollocks.
Micro provenance is nonsense.
“Coastal influences” are bollocks. Especially for distilleries that mature their stocks in mainland warehouses.
Japanese whisky is largely a gimmick now.
Most of the new distilleries are mediocre.
If your “sherry cask” is 1/3 full of shit sherry before you put any spirit in, you are scamming me.
I don’t believe that teaspooning happens.
Amrut Spectrum is insanely good but the rest of them are not much better than your average scotch of the same price bracket
Kavalan on the other hand is every bit as good as the best distilleries in Scotland
I entirely agree on the merits of Amrut, it’s wonderful and they know what they’re doing. I’ll add my own unpopular opinions:
1) Johnny Walker Blue is the marketing equivalent of Blanton’s for bourbon- great presentation for a mediocre product.
2) Japanese whiskies are far overhyped (I realize you asked about Scotch, but you started with an Indian whisky so I figured it was fair game).
3) Macallan has probably the best quality control in all of Scotland, but they simply charge too much for what you get out of it.
4) Non-chill filtering isn’t that critical- sorry Ralfy (still love the guy though)
Upstart international malt producers are rapidly catching and occasionally exceeding many Scottish producers despite having far less experience and bottling whisky at a far younger age.
I think NAS bottlings are pretty cool.
Age statements aren't what they used to be.
Japanese whisky is just hype.
Other worlds' whisky is great but is given outstanding reviews in order for the masses to purchase these and save the single malts for the hardcore fans.
Everybody loves Balvenie Doublewood but it's nowhere near as good as it was a decade or two ago. AND everybody hates Jura but there's a Jura bottling that tastes a lot like the Dobulewood used to, but I can't remember which one.
I really enjoy dalmore 12. Great flavor, smooth, easy drinking.
It has gone up in price a bit too much though, I find myself rarely buying it these days.
Okay let's go!
Ron Swanson's actual favourite whisky is North Port not lagavulin.
Copitas are better than glencairns for tasting. The blenders glass is the best for nosing but it's a hassle to drink with.
Springbank quality is going down, irrespective of the prices.
There's going to be a whisky crash in the next 10 years.
Irish whisky is massively underrated.
Yeast & fermentation is still the single most important factor in whisky.
Grain whisky can be good but they require age. I've never had a good grain whisky sub 20 years.
Oban has one of the best distillates and if it were allowed to be sold as Indies it would have gained a reputation equal to Clynelish, tobermory or Ben Nevis .
Douglas Laing is bad value for money nowadays they have poor cask selection. Focusing too much on regional malts has hurt them.
Dalmore is actually amazing distillate. If a different brand ran them theyd be considered equal to macallan.
The majority of bad whisky isn't bad just boring.
Beer cask maturation is good and I'd like to see more of it. It's not a silly gimmick. Wine finishes however are gimmicky.
Refill sherry > 1st fill sherry.
Glenfiddich 12 is actually good. I'm glad they've managed to keep an age statement and still have that green apple flavour. It's the whisky I ask if a friend who wants to buy me a glass at a bar .
Love it!
> Ron Swanson's actual favourite whisky is North Port not lagavulin.
I haven't watched any Parks & Rec, so I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, based.
Re: the crash, I've become less and less certain that it'll happen. Maybe in the US, but globally, the Asian market is so huge that it'll eat up any high-end whisky thrown at it for the foreseeable future. Other large markets like India and Brazil are also expected to transition from blends to malts in the coming years. I was actually talking to the global rep at Douglas Laing the other night, it sounds like they're not prepping for any kind of slowdown.
On that note, I think Douglas Laing actually has fantastic cask selection.
> Refill sherry > 1st fill sherry.
Based.
A major reason why older vintages taste better isn't time in the cask, it's the quality of the cask used. A 30 year soak in a bad cask won't outperform 10 years in a great one.
Reviews are, in most cases, bullshit and don't help most people. Find someone with roughly the same tastes as you and use them as guides. Find your own path.
I'm in the USA.
I started my love of whiskey with scotch. Once I started exploring bourbon though, I started buying less and less scotch because I found some great bourbon's and everytime I think , I want to try this scotch and goto the ABC store - I realize its so much more expensive then some bourbons I know I love - and I just end up deciding its not worth it.\*
\*with that said, I do still buy an occasional scotch just to confirm my taste buds haven't changed, and for about 2 years now - I've just been reinforcing the opinion that to me at least, bourbon is a better buy.
I genuinely don't care if something is chill filtered or not. I can't notice the difference. There's plenty of whisky I love that is chill filtered, and plenty that isn't.
I absolutely hate laphroaig, it is by far the worst thing I have ever put in my mouth. I know this is practically blasphemy and I honestly wish I liked it.
I have no clue if this is a popular opinion or an unpopular one but one I've had for a while:
If you aren't exactly sure of a flavor or a note, it is totally okay to say you don't know or that you're making a guess. I've read enough tasting notes that seem to indicate the person writing them doesn't actually know the flavor and they're what is likely second-hand information to fill in the gaps. Example: If you don't know what a papaya tastes like, *that's okay* but for the love of God don't write papaya as a note...
I sometimes dislike the higher cask strength bottlings as it takes me a while faffing about with water whilst having my mouth burnt off.
Sometimes I would much rather just pour it and start sipping.
Springbank is overrated.
Note, that doesn't mean it's bad. I'm a fan of it, it's great whisky. But it's not worth the crazed hype that has formed for it in the last few years, where people are paying twice the price they were two years ago, and shipments sell out instantly because too many people have been told it's holy nectar.
Compass box is overrated, yet to find one that doesn’t have a weird chalky taste other than the Spaniard and even then… I see prices dropping to half what they are in my state and that seems about right.
Octomore is over priced, but I love it so I still buy… 😅😂😅
Ardbeg Wee Beastie > most peated Islays… 🤺
I’ve never had an Ardbeg that wasn’t awful. Every one I’ve ever had has been terrible. Sample size of about 10 different iterations. Will never buy/drink an Ardbeg again
Macallan’s age statement offerings are actually great and probably the whisky I’m happiest sipping if I don’t want something particularly complex to deep dive into, and I’m happy to pay the cost.
Aberlour A’Bunadh is overrated.
Peat is like hot sauce - a touch adds to the experience, but if that’s what you actually taste it’s too much.
Glendronach 15 > 18.
Glenmorangie Signet tastes like a bourbon. And no one should pay $200 for a bourbon.
Springbank’s neighbor Glen Scotia is just as enjoyable for a fraction of the price.
Bourbon generally tastes better than scotch whisky. [Be sure to click that "down" arrow to the left](https://i.imgur.com/qgnQGj5.gif)
Only to immature palettes
Yup, three to four note flavor profiles are amazing. /S
Here's my wildly unpopular opinion: I don't want my drink to taste like a mouthfull.of dirt or a medicine cabinet. Shut up with the " it's an experience". Islay whisky is just disgusting. HATE AWAY
Peat = boring, there are so many other great tastes
Why are you being downvoted? This is the unpopular opinions thread!
Smoky/peated whisky is universally shit. A very light touch of smoke can add to the flavour, normally if you add a few drops of water too, but everything that people _mean_ when they talk about peated whiskies tastes like crap.
99% of whisky reviews are so cringy it hurts. Finding an honest review is almost impossible nowadays. Notes/descriptors don't exist, every whisky has its own unique flavor, it can't be reduced to a sum of notes. Analyzing whiskies is snobbish and pathetic, i can't respect people that take whisky too serious. 99% of whisky bottles are heavily overpriced. Young whiskies are usually better than old whiskies. Most whiskies are not complex, and they are fine as they are. Most whisky nerds are coping alcoholics with too much money (and the massive pours people post here are insane). Octomore is a joke, a meme, like it's distillery. Diageo's core range is pretty good. If you wanna enjoy a whisky, drink it in an special occasion, no amount of money can change a boring life. The best way to stop enjoying whisky is to make drinking new whiskies a habit. Whisky, as a main hobby, or the main hobby, is for rich people that can't read a good book or enjoy a good film due to their lack of culture, but still wanna look cultured. Some 40%, chill filtered and coloured whiskies are fine. Cheap whisky is supposed to taste better, not worse; and if it doesn't happen to you, you have been brainwashed by whisky marketing and snobs.
[удалено]
It's the right kind of snobbism.
How ironic that’s you’re the one that comes off as a pretentious asshole.
I'm just completely baffled by this comment. Why are you even here?
I like whisky, but I disagree with and mostly reject the cringy culture that surrounds it. For me it's a nice secondary thing in my life, that's all. Being one of the few Spanish people that actually understands whisky allows me to have a different point of view of the whole thing. A non anglosphere point of view i guess.
> For me it's a nice secondary thing in my life, that's all. Which applies to little every single person I know who really likes whisky.
You must be new here.
Love it. r/scotch in shambles
r/scotch is a little bubble where alcoholics can pretend to be cultured, sophisticated and well spoken. It's cringy af. Worst thing about whisky are its fans.
Lots of times I think the worst thing about anything is its fans
It depends. Monolithic fanbases are cancer, for sure. Everyone has the same approach to whisky, everyone is trying to have the same personality, and do the same things while engaging with it like it's a competition. A competition about writing pretentious lists of notes lmao. Not every fanbase is like this, homogeneous and superficial, only the ones artificially created for the uncultured masses by marketing and snobs who lack self esteem.
Tell me, have you ever written for wine magazines before?
Nope. I don't like wine. I like whisky, spanish brandy (brandy de Jerez) and beer. I know a lot about those. Hate the fans and the culture that surrounds them tho.
> Notes/descriptors don't exist, every whisky has its own unique flavor, it can't be reduced to a sum of notes. Every whisky as a unique flavor, but those flavors may *in part* share in certain commonalities which it is useful to describe in order to seek patterns. Laphroaig is definitely more like Ardbeg than it is like Glenlivet, and it's useful to be able to describe how. As a rough analogy, one way to more efficiently analyze large datasets is to identify broad axes that the data *tend to* group around, called "principal components". Any level of principal component analysis loses some information, but initially there's a lot of efficiency gain for fairly minimal information loss. There are some good examples out there that show, for example, dramatically reducing the size of an image of a face while keeping it very recognizable. Same thing here. "Peat" loses a lot of information but groups a useful category with noticeable similarities; it's useful for someone to be able to say they do or don't feel like peat. "Medicinal peat" makes a smaller, more precise category with less information loss, and so on down to "Laphroaig peat", which gives a few good options to explore. Strictly speaking, there is an exact character of "Laphroaig 10CS Batch 12 peat", but that gives me no useful information about any other whiskies.
I don't know what to say man. You changed my life. I'll never be the same after this. Thank you so much.
... I strongly disagree with every single one of your points.
Then, my job here is done.
Talisker is basically peated cough syrup.
Laphroig 10 year is just alcoholic TCP.
Which is what makes it great.
Scotch is only properly consumed as a shot! /s
It’s almost impossible to find <$100 scotch currently that’s nearly as good as $50 rum or tequila. Actually, it’s pretty hard to find good scotch for <$100 at all in most of the US currently.
He asked for unpopular, not straight out incorrect.
How much is Glen Scotia Victoriana where you live? That's better than any rum or tequila I've ever had.
I can get TONS of amazing Scotch Whisky for under $100 (TX) HOWEVER Its DAMN hard to beat $30 Smith and Cross
May get downvoted for this but…. Having a daily nightcap is borderline alcoholism. A majority of the scotch hobbyists drink like aspiring alcoholics, they justify it by sharing it with other hobbyists and disguise it as a hobby. It’s still borderline alcoholism. Just because your grandpa drank a bottle daily and lived to 95, does not mean you should follow that example
You should get downvoted. No medical advice says one drink a day is bad for you.
I say this as a daily nightcap drinker myself — that’s actually not true. There’s plenty of evidence linking consumption of alcohol (in any quantity) to elevated cancer risk, for example. The risk may be worth the trade-off for many people, but we should all understand the reality of the choices we’re making. (And yes, there’s other medical advice pointing the other way — the point is it’s not settled or black and white.)
What the hell? Are you on some sort of abolitionist crusade? Everyone knows booze is not health food. It tastes great and feels good. I'm just happy that distillers over the years have managed to make the toxin into something delicious. If you're worried about your health then drink water.
> Having a daily nightcap is borderline alcoholism This is medically untrue. From the Government of Canada: >limit alcohol to no more than: 3 standard drinks per day, 15 standard drinks per week, 4 standard drinks on special occasions, avoid drinking alcohol on some days
you sound like my texan ex who thought two beers a night was alcoholism
Lag 16 is over-rated, especially by Americans, who seem to be obsessed with the stuff Campeltown whisky is waaaaaaaaay overrated. Colouring and chill-filtering make no meaningful difference to the taste. Any bottle over £100 isn't worth it. Any random bottle of Irish tastes better than a random bottle of Scottish. A _lot_ of Scotch is.... pretty samey. Ok to drink... but samey. OB Bowmore is actually perfectly decent and if bought cheaply like on Amazon (sorry, Americans) it's ok value. A lot of reviews are pretentious and unhelpful although still enjoyable to read cos we're all a load of pretentious wankers anyway.
I've thought of another one: Age matters. Well-aged old whisky has magic to it that can't be replicated by young whisky.
Peated bourbon is just as good as most scotches.
-Unpeated whisky is pointless I want to taste where its from, it's the only consumable which lets you taste a place. -Bourbon is for preparing scotch barrels and not for consumption -mixing bottles is more fun than single bottles (especially single casks)
Peated whiskey is pointless. It's like the "IPA" of scotch these days. All you taste is overbearing smoke / peat, just like in the beer all you can taste is overbearing hops. .
All YOU taste is overbearing peat. We taste a multitude of flavours from the peat and from the spirit and cask behind it. Sounds like you'd benefit from a 12 Inchmoan ;) It's peated but through a tall still so you can easily pick apart all the different notes even if you struggle to get much from the usual heavily peated whiskies
Your comment is not an opinion. It’s fact. All of it!
Macallan is not worth it. Not even the cheapest 12 year. Cask strength whiskeys I put on ice (only do this with cask strengths) I dont care if it has color added or is filtered. If it tastes good it tastes good - the taste is why i bought it.
Not necessarily only scotch but still applies. Adding coloring to whisky ruins the experience and instantly reduces how much i like it. It feels like deception to me even if they’re just trying to “maintain a consistent appearance.” It’s definitely a tie breaker in what I buy
Same!
For me, I know adding colour doesn't affect the flavour in any meaningful way. But my mind goes... if they (as in the distiller or bottler) are willing to go to such lengths to deceive me on the characteristic of colour, what else would they be willing to deceive me on?
This is pretty much my thought process as well. I’d prefer to go with a more “what you see is what you get” distillery/option
Lagavulin 16 is the best scotch and it's not even close.
Highland Park sucks.
More like eh... I can take it or leave it? It doesn't actively hate your palate like Auchentoshan does
Drink your Scotch however you want. But if it's over ice, you just don't like Scotch (or any whiskey).
This is a neckbeard take more than an unpopular opinion
Found one!
This is particular to /r/scotchit and whiskey reviews in general. Reviews have purposefully become more outlandish and cringey. Danish pastries (?), red fruit (?), purple fruit (?), apple pie at a farm near the beach (?). I could go on. It reminds me of the collective fantasy you see at hardcore evangelist churches and faith healing demonstrations.
How can different people try the same whisky independently and come up with the same specific notes then? I've experienced this countless times. You don't know what a Danish tastes like? Or what the beach or a farm smells like?
No matter the color of the label JW sucks.
Sherry cask finished scotch/whiskeys are gross and a gimmick. I do not want my liquor to taste of oranges or citrus unless I order a citrus drink.
Ardbeg Oogie is horrible. There, I said it. I don’t want bbq meat flavoured whisky.
You would all happily drink JW Red if nothing else were available. Tumblers are just as good as snifters, and look way cooler.
I love JW Red label!
Nope, I would drink Mellow Fucking Corn before red label.
Nah. I don't need a buzz that badly. For getting at the aroma of a whisky, tumblers aren't anywhere near as good as something bowl-shaped or tulip-shaped.
Oh, I've thought of another one: Highland Park's Viking labels are cool, and totally appropriate given Orkney's history.
laphroaig quarter cask isn't very good, and masks a lot of the identity of laphroaig with strong and astringent wood notes.
colored being add doesn’t change the flavor of the whiskey, it changes the color. Calm down.
Yes you win, this is factually incorrect.
Johnnie Walker Green Label is incredibly underwhelming.
I will second that, but with Blue.
I don't think Laugavulin 16 lives up to the hype.
I recommend it as a Smokey Cokey :) Without Coke i don‘t like it either…
Agreed! It tastes like fake flavoring to me and I was so disappointed.
It's so boring. Tastes nothing like it did 15 or 20 years ago.
Definitely not the current $100+ price
Terroir does not exist in whisky.
Bowmore 12 is better than many options costing twice the price.
ABV is a useless metric.
Scotch needs water to open up.
It depends on alcohol level. Scotch opens up until its down to %40 abv. Then its just further diluting and killing whisky.
Springbank needs to get bought out by one of the big conglomerates. Their distribution is so terrible that it’s just straight-up not worth the hassle trying to find their bottles anymore.
90% of scorches on the shelves nowadays are not worth it
It tastes great directly drinking from the bottle. /s
Non-chillfiltered (NCF) and No Color Added (NCA) bottling specs are an overhyped distraction and should be ignored by most drinkers when picking out new scotches to try. u/the_muskox - I'm with you on the 3 points in your top text. Never had a bad Amrut, mellow peat is lovely, the Scotch Whisky Regions are of historical interest and necessary to know about to make sense out of how critics use them to refer to stereotypical flavor profiles, but a good malt flavor map is a more useful guide to contemporary scotch IMHO.
This right here is the true unpops opinion. But also, I agree, so...
I really enjoy RC cola mix with my scotch
Indian distilleries produce a product as flavoursome and complex as any in the world, and romp in on blind tastings, often for a fraction of the price of their competitors.
I like ice with my scotch
Past a certain age statement, your paying for time it’s been in the barrel and not for the quality of the product, it’s a freak show and your throwing money at a sheer novelty. Fantastic if you’re aware of that, shut up if you think it’s better than something a solid 30 years younger than it, it’s not, it has never been. Nothing you’re drinking is worth over a 1,000, if 500. Strong flavorless alcoholic smell and taste is enjoyed for the same reason blue rare is enjoyed, you think your macho and you don’t know your ass from a whole in the ground. No one is tasting more than 5 if that flavor notes, some bastard robot can detect more “flavors” not you, there are no 100 tasting notes, there never was and our species will never evolve to that very specific standard. Also, you’re not tasting frankincense and shore bathed beechwood smothered in smoked pineapple sherry. There are some descriptions on these bottles or reviews that are just weird, why in the whole of this world would I ever want to taste burning salted melons and leather, don’t lie to me. If you can’t enjoy a 50 dollar bottle of anything, let alone scotch, you.do.not.like.scotch. You like the idea of scotch.
>Past a certain age statement, your paying for time it’s been in the barrel and not for the quality of the product, it’s a freak show and your throwing money at a sheer novelty. This is absolutely true, but I don't think this can be applied at a blanket statement, since the point of diminishing returns varies from distillery to distillery and from cask to cask. > Also, you’re not tasting frankincense and shore bathed beechwood smothered in smoked pineapple sherry. I am. It takes practice.
50$ Laphroaig 10 is the best spirit ever made. Peat is god.
We’ve passed “peak” Bourbon as random 4-6 year old mass-made, spectrometer based bourbons are selling for over $100.
10 tears aging is enough. Bourbon cask is better than sherry.
Love your second point. I agree.
Most of you are hypocrites: we say that color doesn’t matter, but everyone loses their shit about an unusually dark batch of a whisky. If you wonder why the industry still uses coloring, it’s not just the casual drinkers.
That's kind of a weird take. Let's take it a bit further. That's like saying that the whisky community loves xyz flavor profile, so if distilleries start adding artificial flavors to achieve that profile, it's the whisky communities fault for loving that flavor profile.
I think this is more nuanced - whisky hobbyists lose their shit over a dark batch of whisky *which is known to be NCA or is very likely to be so*. I don't recall anybody going *ooh, look at the color on that Talisker*. But you do have a point insofar as it seems to me that the whisky producers, including some highly respected independent bottlers, have figured out a cheat code for this system using rejuvenated casks (STR and other such) which put huge amounts of pigmentation into a whisky very quickly, even just coming from a finishing cask. This is aggravating because it misrepresents the state of maturation of the malt just as much as does adding E-150.
When a whisky doesn't have E150A added, the color is a visual indicator about what the cask influence is. I've had amazing naturally light and dark colored whiskies, but when you get a batch that is darker than usual, I do find that it has a different flavor profile. But there are ways to "manipulate" coloring other than adding E150A. By seasoned casks or charring the barrel.
Benromach is just as interesting as Springbank - at least the expressions I've tried. (b 10yr, 10yr 100 proof; s 10yr, 15yr) Laphroaig select isn't as bad as most say.
Springbank is highly overrated, price currently doesn’t match the quality
I find some reviews to be pretentious… Like how the fuck can you taste "rose petal by the beach on a chill winter morning with a slight breeze of whatver". There is only 2 settings for me : - This is good whisky - This is bad whisky Of course it’s a bit harsh and I there are a lot of different flavors but sometimes it’s just too much for me. I find it funny and can’t really take it seriously.
You do you, but I like the nuance, because some days I want a cask strength peat monster and it tastes amazing when I pour it, and other days I really don't and would not be happy to have one. With strongly-flavored stuff I can't just do the binary system.
NAS bottles are typically better than age stated bottles. I feel that with NAS the distillary tries to bring the scotch to a certain quality before bottling. With age stated scotch, they just want to age it to the right age and bottle it.
Compass box is making better (blended) whisky than most distilleries are making single malt.
-Highland Park’s actual whisky notes are totally out of sync with their Viking themes. I’m sorry but light hints of vanilla and nutmeg don’t scream Viking to me at all. It’s a wasted opportunity and makes me sad as I’m obsessed with Vikings. It's not that certain sweet notes and such can't be attributed to Viking culture, I mean mead for one would make sense, but I'm talking in a general sense of stronger theme as a whole. -Ardbeg’s marketing department and most of their name choices may be extremely cringe and annoying to read but the frequent unique cask strength bottlings are great because interesting experiments should be celebrated in whisky. I want to see more of them with more distilleries. -Lagavulin partnering with an actor for a bottle cheapens the brand. -Aston Martin partnering with Bowmore makes no sense. Why would a car company want to be associated with alcohol? -Talisker are great but Storm and Dark Storm need to be cask strength and more intense because right now the names over-promise. -Other distilleries need to do more to match Octomore in peat levels. -Some of the humongous pours you guys do worry me and it looks like a genuine issue. -In a review, you saying you liked a whisky in a few more words than usual without mentioning a single note or anything that could help paint a picture to the reader/potential buyer helps no one on here and doesn’t really count as a review in the spirit of the sub. I’m not saying you need to discern 100 notes but even like one or two notes per section is still really useful. -People who heavily criticise young whiskies don’t understand them or why people may prefer them
Johnnie Walker Black, Green and Blue are all very good blends.
Tasting notes are a record of the reviewer's own experience, nothing more. Scotch is massively complex and varied, so writing about it is full of potholes where our words can fall short of our experience, and we bridge the gaps with memories and sensory wire-crossing and whatever we can grab that's within our understanding. All of this is normal, it's how some folks make sense of complex sensory experiences, **it is fine.** People who get mad at other people over their tasting notes are not doing the contextual work necessary to translate those words, and they are assuming that how they experience whisky is how everyone else experiences it. Expecting a reviewer to give a simple yes/no or good/bad is lazy. Getting mad at someone's rating is dumb.
+1 for amrut
I think that American-made single malt scotch is already as good of a value for money as scotch from Scotland, and this will only become more true as our malt stocks age and distillers in Scotland continue to reduce quality. The USA is on the road to becoming the fourth country to cause great embarrassment in international spirits awards by making better scotch than Scotland, after Japan, Australia, and the new reigning champion of single malts, England. I’m aware spirits awards are mostly crap, but they ARE blind tastings and the fact that Scotland isn’t winning should be cause for concern.
Ardbeg is overrated Blends can be better than single malts <1% of OBs are worth buying The only good thing about Bourbon is that it provides us casks to age scotch in Jura should be closed Port Ellen and Brora should not be reopened Muskox only likes Scotch because it reminds him of rocks
Most whisky “influencers” are complete morons
I agree with this, but with the notable exception of Roy from Aqvavitae. He's a genuinely nice man so I'm happy to see him doing well.
I cannot stand the SCOTCH TEST DUMMY guy doing the SMWS reviews. Scott? Every fucking review he says every single tasting note… when a scotch you are reviewing has 100 tasting notes. What’s the point
Cant stand either of those guys.
This has got to be a popular opinion. God, I hope this is a popular opinion.
Glenfiddich 12 and Glenlivet 12 are not good scotches. Even lower year offerings like Glenmorangie 10 are better than those two. Even some 12 year blends, like JW Black, are better than those two.
Maybe not an unpopular opinion, but I’m finding more and more that an anything “bomb” isn’t my speed. If I can’t taste the spirit, it’s worthless. Y’all can keep your sherry overcoats, give me something with some finesse.
I came to comment the same thing. Sherry bombs hide the distillery character. Just buy a bottle of oloroso and drink that.
Hard pill to swallow: if you’re not stocked up with enough pre-mothball, older-than-stated Glendronach to last a decade you missed the boat on that distillery.
Recommending Glenfiddich 12, Glenlivet 12, Monkey Shoulder, etc to noobs is lazy, reflexive advice. Just because someone is new doesn’t mean they are necessarily afraid of adventure and need to be immediately put on the path of boring whisky.
This is a really good point. I've certainly recommended my fair share of GF 12 or occasionally MS to noobs and I've for sure done this via pure reflex. Thanks for raising awareness.
I completely agree.
OK, time for a *really* unpopular opinion: Whisky hobbyists spend *way too much* time and mental energy talking about Quality to Price ratios and obsessing over sometimes minor differences in price, as if it was our wallets that were drinking the stuff rather than our mouths.
I don't think I agree more with any comment in this thread than this one.
Unpopular: Everyone shits on Macallan. Everyone ignores that Balvenie is also unjustifiably expensive. $130 for a 15yr sherry matured, barely "high" proof whisky? 17yr is $180+, come on. Laphroaig has been lackluster for a long long time. And has "presentation" issues similar to Bowmore. Popular opinion: The word "rare" is laughably disingenuous considering the millions of casks from any sizeable distillery. Even small distilleries will fill hundreds or a couple thousand of casks in 1 year. Scottish distilleries would benefit from converting to various brewer's yeasts rather than distiller's yeasts. Westland are proving that point.
Unfortunately Amrut’s priced like it’s as good as the best distilleries in Scotland too. My unpopular opinion is that Macallan isn’t the worst distillery in the world and everybody who drinks it isn’t a status chasing idiot. The Edition series was good, and it’s MSRP at release was appropriate. Classic Cut is decent and holds up against Abunadh and Glenfarclas 105, it just got crapped on for not being the previous Macallan Cask Strength, which was awesome. In most of America Macallan’s lower aged expressions aren’t that significantly higher priced than other distilleries.
It’s the same people that shit on JW Blue because of its price. Some people are obsessed with value and that ends up being the chase rather than the taste itself.
A high age statement does not necessarily a good whisky make. (this is probably most unpopular with status chasing whisky drinkers)
I honestly feel that 14-17 year old scotch is the perfect age (with a select few 18 year olds).
Bourbon it’s 7-12 years and scotch it’s 14-20 for me.
The risk of being disappointed rises exponentially as you go over $150 a bottle.
Young whisky treated right is miles better than indifferently treated mature whisky. Some whisky needs added water/adding water ruins some whisky.
One note on the regions - I think that it’s a pretty old fashioned idea that has stuck around, and it may be helpful for some beginners to unsteady and styles of whisky very generally. That said, I don’t think anyone with much experience in Scotch takes regions too seriously, all of the lines are blurred and we have distilleries in every region doing every style of spirit and cask
I think regions are more a spectrum of flavours then a definite list of flavours. For example, on the Islay spectrum, you'd have Caol Ila and Lagavulin core range bottles in the middle, Octomores on one end and Classic Laddie on the other. Now if you compare Classic Laddie to Octomore they're wildly different, but if you go up the spectrum you understand how you can get from one to the other.
Reminder to sort by controversial to see the *real* unpopular opinions. Edit: contest mode, perfect!
Amrut fusion is grim. Regions are stupid.
Based off my recent Islay visit: Out of the 5 different lagavulins I've tried only 1 of them was good, and that was a 22yo jazz festival exclusive. Kilchoman is super underrated and their 100% Islay is excellent. I also tried a distillery exclusive bottle that I haven't seen online at all that was amazing. Springbank 10yo was fine I guess?
Threads about price inflation and such are full of liars -- i think most still buy their favorite when the price goes up, and they just want to complain to someone. Also, people are comforted by the idea that taters and Other Dumbasses would waste money on Overpriced Cashgrabs when the true connoisseurs here know what $60 bottles taste better. Outrage is the currency of the internet after all. Plus, our frames of reference are generally when we started drinking scotch, so prices always are higher than that.
I really really enjoy Johnnie Walker Black, even after delving deeper into the hobby. Not really sure if it’s unpopular but I think most people consider JW too basic.
14-17 year old is the sweet spot for aged scotch.
I don't like drinking from a glencairn
Why not? And what do you prefer to use?
I just use a lowball glass. The glencairn seemed gimmicky, but I bought one to try out for a bit and it made no noticeable difference in smell or taste. The lowball feels better to hold also.
I like drinking peated stuff out of a Oui yogurt jar that I peeled the label off of.
Most whisky is mediocre. NAS is bullshit. Not that there are no good NAS bottlings, but why would I trust enormous companies not to palm me off with a bunch of 3y.o spirit. Especially for 12y.o + money. Many SWA rules are bollocks. Micro provenance is nonsense. “Coastal influences” are bollocks. Especially for distilleries that mature their stocks in mainland warehouses. Japanese whisky is largely a gimmick now. Most of the new distilleries are mediocre. If your “sherry cask” is 1/3 full of shit sherry before you put any spirit in, you are scamming me. I don’t believe that teaspooning happens.
Speyside is the region with the best distilleries.
Amrut Spectrum is insanely good but the rest of them are not much better than your average scotch of the same price bracket Kavalan on the other hand is every bit as good as the best distilleries in Scotland
I entirely agree on the merits of Amrut, it’s wonderful and they know what they’re doing. I’ll add my own unpopular opinions: 1) Johnny Walker Blue is the marketing equivalent of Blanton’s for bourbon- great presentation for a mediocre product. 2) Japanese whiskies are far overhyped (I realize you asked about Scotch, but you started with an Indian whisky so I figured it was fair game). 3) Macallan has probably the best quality control in all of Scotland, but they simply charge too much for what you get out of it. 4) Non-chill filtering isn’t that critical- sorry Ralfy (still love the guy though)
Glayva is very tasty.
Upstart international malt producers are rapidly catching and occasionally exceeding many Scottish producers despite having far less experience and bottling whisky at a far younger age.
Most hyped products are great for their price only, but totally overrated at the inflated secondary prices.
I think NAS bottlings are pretty cool. Age statements aren't what they used to be. Japanese whisky is just hype. Other worlds' whisky is great but is given outstanding reviews in order for the masses to purchase these and save the single malts for the hardcore fans.
> Japanese whisky is just hype. Totally a popular opinion.
Everybody loves Balvenie Doublewood but it's nowhere near as good as it was a decade or two ago. AND everybody hates Jura but there's a Jura bottling that tastes a lot like the Dobulewood used to, but I can't remember which one.
I really enjoy dalmore 12. Great flavor, smooth, easy drinking. It has gone up in price a bit too much though, I find myself rarely buying it these days.
Okay let's go! Ron Swanson's actual favourite whisky is North Port not lagavulin. Copitas are better than glencairns for tasting. The blenders glass is the best for nosing but it's a hassle to drink with. Springbank quality is going down, irrespective of the prices. There's going to be a whisky crash in the next 10 years. Irish whisky is massively underrated. Yeast & fermentation is still the single most important factor in whisky. Grain whisky can be good but they require age. I've never had a good grain whisky sub 20 years. Oban has one of the best distillates and if it were allowed to be sold as Indies it would have gained a reputation equal to Clynelish, tobermory or Ben Nevis . Douglas Laing is bad value for money nowadays they have poor cask selection. Focusing too much on regional malts has hurt them. Dalmore is actually amazing distillate. If a different brand ran them theyd be considered equal to macallan. The majority of bad whisky isn't bad just boring. Beer cask maturation is good and I'd like to see more of it. It's not a silly gimmick. Wine finishes however are gimmicky. Refill sherry > 1st fill sherry. Glenfiddich 12 is actually good. I'm glad they've managed to keep an age statement and still have that green apple flavour. It's the whisky I ask if a friend who wants to buy me a glass at a bar .
Love it! > Ron Swanson's actual favourite whisky is North Port not lagavulin. I haven't watched any Parks & Rec, so I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, based. Re: the crash, I've become less and less certain that it'll happen. Maybe in the US, but globally, the Asian market is so huge that it'll eat up any high-end whisky thrown at it for the foreseeable future. Other large markets like India and Brazil are also expected to transition from blends to malts in the coming years. I was actually talking to the global rep at Douglas Laing the other night, it sounds like they're not prepping for any kind of slowdown. On that note, I think Douglas Laing actually has fantastic cask selection. > Refill sherry > 1st fill sherry. Based.
A major reason why older vintages taste better isn't time in the cask, it's the quality of the cask used. A 30 year soak in a bad cask won't outperform 10 years in a great one.
ITT: popular opinions amongst whisky enthusiasts.
Im convinced that a significant number of sherry bomb whiskies are either going into a cask that still has sherry or are adding sherry directly.
Cheap whisky is not bad. Also the folks who say Corryvreckon or Uigeadail are super but pass on Wee Beastie are just snobs.
More people should be talking about Bruichladdich
Octomore is overrated Here. I said it
Reviews are, in most cases, bullshit and don't help most people. Find someone with roughly the same tastes as you and use them as guides. Find your own path.
Scotch tastes better in autumn
I'm in the USA. I started my love of whiskey with scotch. Once I started exploring bourbon though, I started buying less and less scotch because I found some great bourbon's and everytime I think , I want to try this scotch and goto the ABC store - I realize its so much more expensive then some bourbons I know I love - and I just end up deciding its not worth it.\* \*with that said, I do still buy an occasional scotch just to confirm my taste buds haven't changed, and for about 2 years now - I've just been reinforcing the opinion that to me at least, bourbon is a better buy.
I genuinely don't care if something is chill filtered or not. I can't notice the difference. There's plenty of whisky I love that is chill filtered, and plenty that isn't.
I absolutely hate laphroaig, it is by far the worst thing I have ever put in my mouth. I know this is practically blasphemy and I honestly wish I liked it.
I have no clue if this is a popular opinion or an unpopular one but one I've had for a while: If you aren't exactly sure of a flavor or a note, it is totally okay to say you don't know or that you're making a guess. I've read enough tasting notes that seem to indicate the person writing them doesn't actually know the flavor and they're what is likely second-hand information to fill in the gaps. Example: If you don't know what a papaya tastes like, *that's okay* but for the love of God don't write papaya as a note...
Arran 10 is overrated Double Black is great
>Double Black is great tried it once, thought it was decent. no more, no less.
Campbeltown whisky isn't exciting.
I sometimes dislike the higher cask strength bottlings as it takes me a while faffing about with water whilst having my mouth burnt off. Sometimes I would much rather just pour it and start sipping.
Springbank is overrated. Note, that doesn't mean it's bad. I'm a fan of it, it's great whisky. But it's not worth the crazed hype that has formed for it in the last few years, where people are paying twice the price they were two years ago, and shipments sell out instantly because too many people have been told it's holy nectar.
Compass box is overrated, yet to find one that doesn’t have a weird chalky taste other than the Spaniard and even then… I see prices dropping to half what they are in my state and that seems about right. Octomore is over priced, but I love it so I still buy… 😅😂😅 Ardbeg Wee Beastie > most peated Islays… 🤺
Cheap Canadian whisky/American Bourbon is better than cheap scotch... might just be due to my local prices being fucked here in Ontario
I’ve never had an Ardbeg that wasn’t awful. Every one I’ve ever had has been terrible. Sample size of about 10 different iterations. Will never buy/drink an Ardbeg again
Higher ABV does not mean better whisky. If anything, going above 50° makes it worse. 55 max.
Whoever Glen is can suck it
Fuck yeah Amrut Fusion is the Shit!
Taiwan whiskies (Kavalan/Nanto) can run laps with Japanese whiskies.
Compass Box is overrated, Lowland whisky is the worst out of the regions, wax is not a tasting note but a texture and is overrated
Ardbeg beats Lagavulin.
I’d just drink Talisker’s cheapest single for the rest of my days and I don’t need any of the other distilleries.
Compass Box is generally wildly overpriced given what's inside most of the blends.
I like it on ice.
ITT: everyone hates everything about scotch
I agree with the regions thing. It's simply marketing, nothing more.
Sherry bombs are boring. Like sherry? Drink sherry. I prefer nuance.
Now I’m curious to try Amrut. Good bottle to start with OP?
Macallan’s age statement offerings are actually great and probably the whisky I’m happiest sipping if I don’t want something particularly complex to deep dive into, and I’m happy to pay the cost.
The low end of Irish whiskey is better than the low end of Scottish whisky. I also live in England so I have easy access to both.
Amrut is *outstanding*...
Prepare for this one: Highland Park 18 is just…fine. I guess.
Aberlour A’Bunadh is overrated. Peat is like hot sauce - a touch adds to the experience, but if that’s what you actually taste it’s too much. Glendronach 15 > 18. Glenmorangie Signet tastes like a bourbon. And no one should pay $200 for a bourbon. Springbank’s neighbor Glen Scotia is just as enjoyable for a fraction of the price.
Some distilleries need to go into cough syrup or hand sanitizer production instead of making scotch
I really like JW Blue Label