Comments on: My take on the whole “Blended Malt” debate

By: sam k

sam k — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:21:38 +0000

“Mingled malt whisky?” Just trying for something else here!

By: Andrew Ferguson

Andrew Ferguson — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:32:18 +0000

John,
From the perspective of a retailer of whisky I think you are 100% correct that the category of blended/vatted malts needs to be defined with a single accepted term. What exactly that term should be, I can’t say for certain. I liked the term vatted malt, although it is admittedly imprecise; distilleries vat their whisky before bottling, and regularly vat together whiskies of different ages and cask types. I welcome the move to simplify things and standardize terminology within the industry.
However, I can’t help but feel that the SWA is being somewhat disingenuous on this front. While I am all for standardizing terminology, I think the term Blended Malt will end up adding to the confusion. There is a perception out there-rightly or not–that blended whisky isn’t as good, or interesting as single malt whisky. Personally I side with the smaller producers who feel this is an attempt by some of the bigger partners in the SWA to nip a new niche market in the bud!
The SWA is after all the same deep pocketed organization that has been raking tiny Glenora distillery in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia over the coals for calling its whisky “Glen Breton” Canadian Single Malt. Never mind the fact Cape Breton was settled by Scots, who used Scottish terms to describe the landscape. And the fact that it was these same expatriates who helped reintroduce Scottish traditions like Highland Dancing banned following the last Jacobite uprising.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:06:00 +0000

I very much concur on the consumer education front, John. I wonder if that is something that the distilleries in Scotland could come together as a group, with the Scottish parliament and Visit Scotland involved, to achieve.
@Daavid: Some of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to whiskey are European, and English is their second, third or fourth language.
But I certainly agree with you that the proposed change in terminology is potentially confusing, especially for those new to a dram.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:00:09 +0000

Good point! English would help. I have learned to understand what certain foreign words mean, even though I am not fluent in that specific language. But it would be helpful. –John

By: daavid

daavid — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:53:19 +0000

do not forget the millions who do not speak English as a first langauage or at all! they need some clear differentiation in the category names. this is the only way they see the difference at the very first sight. single malt – vatted/pure malt – blended scotch is clear. single malt – blended malt and blended scotch: they would understand blended malt as a “mix” of a single malt and a blended scotch. there are many people who not only need education in whisky, but in English first.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:09:53 +0000

JC, “Vatted” and “Pot Still” is understood by you and me, but 99.9% of the whisky consumers have no clue what either means. Will changing “Vatted Malt” to “Blended Malt” solve the problem? No. But, either will work on the long term. And I am willing to go along with either, as long as we have a massive educational program to support it and back it up. –John

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:34:17 +0000

I don’t think whiskey consumers are morons. But this strikes me as a deliberate ploy to confuse on behalf of producers.
There’s little about the term ‘vatted’ that’s beyond comprehension and I cannot see why it cannot be marketed and explained properly, in its own right.
We have ‘pot-still’ whiskey in Ireland. This type of whiskey is more complex to explain than a vatted scotch, to my mind. But that doesn’t stop the distilleries from doing so, from marketing their whiskies in that manner, and from educating the consumer about the difference between a pot still and, say a single malt or a standard blend.
The issue here is about in whose interest is it to popularise a deliberately confusing terminology. It’s certainly not in the customer’s interest to have a market sector whose name is a hybrid of two existing sectors.
To retain the term ‘vatted’ gives three separate phrases which are distinct and can be held distinctly in the mind.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:07:39 +0000

I agree with you Mike. I lean more towards supporting John Glaser and Mark Reynier than the SWA, but do believe that the SWA is just trying to do their best. Still, I would like to see the SWA be comprised of a broader representation. –John

By: Mike Dereszynski

Mike Dereszynski — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:26:42 +0000

John,
Thanks for walking the fine line and providing some “education”. I tend to agree more with the thoughts of John Glaser and Mark Reynier than with the SWA. You are right that the public should be made aware of what is going on.Hopefully BEFORE the SWA and the powers involved make any decisions.It would be a plus if David Williamson and the SWA would listen to our feedback as well as Deageos.
Purhaps to much seriousness on this 1st of April,so pour a dram , take a break before the WF and read todays entry at Serge Valentines Whiskyfun.
Thanks Again John and see you this Friday if not sooner.
Slainte,
Mike Dereszynski