Comments on: Nosing vs. Tasting: the disparity & the concequences

By: Webweites #6 - Cocktails Old Fashioned

Webweites #6 - Cocktails Old Fashioned — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:34:26 +0000

[...] Link zum Artikel [...]

By: two-bit cowboy

two-bit cowboy — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:38:34 +0000

Another technique you might consider:

Open your mouth a little when you nose. Seems to help defer the alcohol, but it also dulls the potency of the whisky’s attributes.

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:01:32 +0000

I can’t speak for elsewhere, but if any Irish distillers require volunteers for a tasting panel, I suspect the Irish Whiskey Society could provide them with sufficient expert tasters.
It would be a win-win scenario for all concerned.

By: B.J. Reed

B.J. Reed — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:08:05 +0000

When we were at Gordon & MacPhail in 2004 we did a tasting where Ronnie Rutledge who was there at the time had us plug our nose completely and then blind taste a whisky tell us what we tasted and then take the nose plug off and then taste it again. What an experience – It simply shows how critical the nose is at both the stage of nosing and tasting.

Also, Monique at the Dell is always having us identify our “dominant nostril” – the one that noses the alcohol versus the one that noses the rest of the whisky (yes we all have one) and that to changes the experience.

So, simply nosing does not bring the entire value of the whisky to the forefront but the nose plays a part in every aspect of reveling in the experience whisky provides.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:59:36 +0000

FYI – I am available to taste whiskeys night or day.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:53:17 +0000

The traditional whisky drinker was not a connoiseur. Early whisky connoiseurship was a part time interest of someone who was general alcholic drinks connoisseur. And whisky appreciation was defintely not the most interesting drink to this general connoisseur. The appreciation of a drink with less alchohol such as congac, port, or wine generated the values through which the general connoisseurs appreciated and assesed their drams. Whisky was harsh to these afficianados– really not drinkable until it was cut down to at least 30% apv. With mouth feel and sparkle subdued by water whisky always made a poor showing in the enjoyability-of-tasting-drinking-and-swallowing department when compared to congac, port, wine, and even good liqeur. What seemed special about it, if anything was its aroma, which could be very distinctive and was carried vigorously into the nostrils by rising alchohol esters.

Also, as you mention John, nosing has been the norm in vatting and blending and there is often an overlap between the people and methods that make products and the people and methods that make certified public judgements of products.

The whole phenomenon of tons of people appreciating the most distinctive qualities of different single casks from different distilleries and just doing that alone apart from any more general drinks connoissership is new.

It requires a new type of reviewer and new values in whisky production.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:56:26 +0000

JC, Yes and I think they would get a lot of volunteers for that job!

By: JC Skinner

JC Skinner — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:38:31 +0000

The retro-olfactory response is crucial here.
When I was on the Guinness taste panel, we were obliged to swallow rather than spit, on the basis that part of the experience of drinking is the taste experienced AFTER swallowing.
In whiskey this is even more crucial than beer. We call it the ‘finish’.
I appreciate that blenders, distillers and those working in the industry aren’t often in a position to nose, taste and swallow umpteen whiskeys as part of their job.
For this reason, I’d recommend that they take a leaf out of Guinness’ book and employ part-time tasting panels to assist them in cask selection.

By: David S.

David S. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:39:15 +0000

Well while you took it a bit off-topic David, I would add there has been a drastic reduction in the quantity of quality sherry casks over the last few decades. This has no doubt made life difficult for many brands, but especially Macallan

David S. (not Stirk)

By: Luke - AspiringGentleman

Luke - AspiringGentleman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:31:58 +0000

Great post. I’ve always found it curious the way blends are created using solely nosing. People in the wine industry laugh at this, and wouldn’t dream of not tasting a wine before releasing it. You need to combination of both taste and smell (and feel in my opinion) to truly judge a wine. How can you know if a whisky has a nice oily mouth feel by smelling it?

By: David Stirk

David Stirk — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:53:33 +0000

Hi Thomas W,

yeah – sorry, bad example. When I wrote that I was thinking more about the old Flora & Fauna and completely missed out how saddened I’ve been at some lacklustre Talisker’s and some completely flat Caol Ila’s. I agree with you that the standard 10yo Laphroaig is a better example. (and when I mentioned Edrington, better to qualify that I was referring to Highland Park, rather than Macallan – I don’t think anyone will agree that a 10yo Macallan now tastes anything like a 10yo from a decade ago).

Again, apologies for being off-topic.

By: Thomas W

Thomas W — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:41:06 +0000

Ad David S.: “keeping the flavours consistent (Diageo and Edrington are incredible at it)”

Having tasted the Talisker 10yo of the year 2006 against the bottlings of ’07 I can’t agree with you there… the first one is lean and almost flat, the one(s) from ’07 are much richer and carry more caramel (not a bad thing, if you ask me and not Jim M.). I think the Laphroaig 10yo is way more consistent.

Also (in case anyone around here apart from myself still drinks blends), compare Johnnie Walker 2008 with the ’09 version. Now, there’s a difference in taste (way more than on the nose, even though those differences are appearent, too)!

By: WhiskyNotes

WhiskyNotes — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:08:57 +0000

Let’s not forget that it’s also a practical issue. No one can taste 100 samples in the same day. If you would do it over several days, then a lot of the comparison is lost. If you do it with several people, it’s less significant as well.

I’m sure that ocasionally a good cask gets lost because of these practical downsides, but I guess the industry has enough experience to know if it works or not.

By: Dutch

Dutch — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:58:55 +0000

Enjoying Whiskey for me is 40% nose and 60% taste, but I agree you can’t always tell by nosing, I had a bottle of Midleton VR go bad on me, but you couldn’t tell by the nose, not until you tasted it did the sour/spoiled taste appear, so I can see that the distilleries are probably missing some very good whiskey.

By: Paul M

Paul M — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:04:44 +0000

I can’t believe that anyone started out learning to nose their whisky before they started to drink it. For me, it wasn’t until I had been drinking for a few years until I learned to really appreciate the nose. There are definitely whiskies that I prefer the taste to the nose and others that have a nice nose, but are less than desirable to drink.