2) Is it really true that maturing whisky in certain conditions is faster and thus makes the same results as maturing it longer in not-so-good-conditions? As a comparison, isn’t is often better to prepare some food in lower temperature for a longer time than doing it the same in higher temperature in shorter time?

On the subject of “the blind loyalty towards Single Malt Scotch,” there is that and it is becoming more visible and more emotionally charged– More alienating to folks like yourself. The origin of this is that things are getting tougher for people who like good scotch.

See, if you like well matured, reasonably priced single malt these days you’re not getting it. As stocks of it drop and prices rise, what you are getting is a lot of PR hype about how it was never all it was cracked up to be and you really shouldn’t miss it. New young single malts are being offered along with a range of talk about why they’re just as good if not better than the traditional style. Meanwhile, the well reviewed traditional older scotch that you want is still coming out, and coming out with the traditional hype, which is of course that it’s better than the new young stuff— But its pricing steadily transcending your spending power.

Then there’re are these new world whiskies, Amrut for example. The (true) line is that because of the climate that they’re matured in they get sufficient wood influence more rapidly and that people accustomed to purchasing stuff that’s spent longer in wood (scotch people mostly) shouldn’t balk at them.

To the ears of the traditional whisky drinker, such explanations are indistinguishable from the PR hype which has accompanied the blitz of unwanted young whiskies that the industry is repopulating the traditional drinker’s viable price range with.

So many who like well matured single malts feel that they have nowhere to go. They’re being boxed out by the industry and to add insult to injury everyone else in the world is busy agreeing that, yes, speedier maturation methods are really very good and you should really try this Indian whisky– But the traditional drinkers do not want a bunch of quarter-casked wood-finished scotch and they certainly don’t want young international whiskies that are allegedly acceptable on the similar grounds. Of course there’s a lot of pure dogma and stoginess to pro-scotch sentiments as well– but to a large extent, Irishwhiskychaser, the alienation that you feel is the result of other folks reaction to the alienation that they feel.

I have 2 points to make here … why do people assume that it was the best Taiwan had to offer … surely if the St George distillery set this up they would not look for the very best Taiwan has to offer. And if they did well they got what they deserved. But remember it was only a 2yo being measured against 3yo whiskies so people possibly had already tried to bias the Taiwan whisky.

Secondly why do people suddenly say that the scotch malts used were not of highest quality or should instead of come from so called better distilleries(I would of thought people tought more highly of Bruchladdich). You can be sure if the X4 won Bruchladdich would be all over the press and don’t tell me a 4 distilled whisky did not have an advantage as if it was good whisky it would of be cited as such too. As a person that loves other whiskies not including scotch single malts I have heard more times than I care to remember that in general there is no such thing as a bad single malt scotch and other nonsensical catch all statements that by de-facto scotch is the pinnacle of whisky in the world or any scotch single malt is better than say an Irish blend.

I love my scotch whisky and think rightly that it has the majority of the best whiskies in the world but not all. I love my Irish too and see some Irish blends far superior to some scotch single malts. Yet I feel I am objective enough to name and shame below par Irish Whiskey also. This is what I sometimes find lacking in the scotch whisky enthusiast especially when foreign factors are to play such as in this case. There is always seems to be an excuse. Amrut got the same treatment when it first came on the market. Some comments on Connemara when it originally came out was why are cooley jumping on the peated whisky band wagon or even offensive comments like why don’t the Irish stick to what they know … triple distilled.

I find that people seem to automatically put up mental barriers to malt whiskies that are not Scotch. This attitude, to me, seems to cloud peoples objectivity.

Serge’s comment of “this is surprisingly good” is a testament to that attitude. Sorry Serge but even you are not perfect

I don’t know why people can’t be positively objective and more open about non scotch malts.

And from another perspective … there is now a bit of a fashion of putting out a series of spirit in different ages and culminating in the magical 3yo whisky. Usually followed by PR fan fare and hoopla and rave reviews yet when an upstart from Taiwan comes out with a 2yo (speed matured) whisky it is seen as unfair. You can’t have it all ways … if you want to take it to extremes … no whisk(e)y is the same so why bother compare at all. …. sorry for the tirade and I don’t mean to offend but the blind loyalty towards Single Malt Scotch sometimes really annoys me.

I suggest this as the desired scenario for resolution: We are having drams and are able to get a couple drams for whisky chemists, who then discuss their views on the matter with us. Then, they buy us drams for the sheer excellence of our questions. Then, the bartender gets us all a round for the fine education she’s received over the last hour. We all depart having reached recreational level by way of excellent drams, with great anecdotes if not totally secure answers…I’d be pleased.

Maybe John would join us.

For my part, I understand the claim just in terms of how the Amrut folks explained it to me. First, the angels are very thirsty there; if they let their whisky age for 16 yrs, a hell of a lot of it would be gone. Now, that does not imply that *everything* happening inside those casks is the same as everything that happens inside casks in the Highlands over a longer period. The claim I’ve made is just that, whatever happens in those casks (in addition to significantly increased evaporation), gives them in 6 or 7 years whiskies that have flavor, complexity and viscosity “beyond their years.” They seem clearly to have gone beyond the heat of youth, and they’ve taken on surprising color and flavor. That doesn’t mean they are absolutely brilliant, or that their depth and complexity wouldn’t be improved upon by a longer period of time in a Speyside warehouse. It’s just a claim that, in 6 or 7 yrs, they take on qualities beyond what we would expect from the same number of years in, say, the Highlands.

I’m not the expert you are, or quite a number of others here, but the basic empirical differences between 6-7 yrs in India (or Taiwan, apparently) and Scotland seem pretty clear. Something explains those differences. Ingredients are a bit different, but not so different as to carry the explanation. The better explanation seems to be what happens chemically inside the casks in that very different climate. If memory serves, that fits with the way the Amrut folks understand their process.

But, hell, Red, I don’t know. I’m curious, as I’ve indicated before in talking about Amrut. I’m hoping that whisky chemists study the matter and develop a real understanding.

I also hope what I just wrote is clear. It was a pretty late night. Respects, Mark.

Please, if I’m missing something obvious, educate me.

Say there are two barrels of the same whisky and one is subject to some of the conditions that allegedly speed up maturation to the degree that it ought to mature twice as fast. If you bottle the “faster” whisky in ten years will it really taste the same as the “slower” whisky bottled in twenty?