Comments on: Malt Advocate Whisky Awards “Scotch Whisky: Blend of the Year”: Compass Box, “The Peat Monster”

By: Goldfinch

Goldfinch — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:10:38 +0000

Here comes the heretic…
…whilst risking sounding inflammatory, are any of you actually drinkers, or do you reverentially sip the odd half-ounce or so whilst stroking your beards? I for one am sick and weary of sherry wood this, cask strength that. I DON’T have a nose that would grace a French perfume house, BUT my latest bottle from Islay was redolent of the underarm region of one of my work shirts after a long hard shift during the summer months. Fact. I like a good drink at weekend. A REALLY good drink. I know for a fact that the bottle of Johnnie Black that I buy this weekend will be essentially the same as the one from last week. To be honest with you, a hundred pound bottle tastes EXACTLY the same as a fifteen pound bottle when you’re over half way through it at two in the morning. Enjoy your Scotch, but please remember, it’s just booze, not some mystical elixir.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:21:17 +0000

Amongst connoisseurs there is often too much emphasis on the features of a whisky that can be easily named or printed on the label, age, non-chillfiltering, non coloring, strength, ratings… etc.

Tasting with an open mind is the best and ultimately most rewarding approach. Next to my cask strength, single cask Brora, I’ve got a chill-filtered, caramel colored, Rosebank bottled at 40%, which I like as much or better, which just goes to show…

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:05:15 +0000

At the end of the day, it’s just semantics. Experienced whisky drinkers know what it is, but the novice doesn’t. I can tell you from experience that once you tell them a particular whisky is a blend, they give you a strange look. Try explaining what a pure malt/vatted malt is and you will get an even stranger look. In time, I’m sure it won’t matter. It’s just a little frustrating at the moment.

By: Mark Davis

Mark Davis — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:45:50 +0000

People don’t consider coffee bean blends to be an inferior product even though just like scotch they were frequently lower end products that removed anything that someone might find offensive leaving out lots of character. If Compass Box leads more companies to create higher end blends the word will lose it’s negative connotation. This discussion has been very interesting. It seems to be more about the connotation in the consumer’s mind than the literal meaning of the word. We have a tendency to want a product that is more “pure” unchill-filtered, cask strength, single malt from malt made on site. I strive to be an enthusiast and not a snob. To me that means enjoying a quality product. Peat monster is on my list of about a half dozen bottles in my price range I want to buy. this discussion thread put it over the edge.

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:33 +0000

Would you ever consider releasing a boubon under the “Compass Box” name?

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:28:19 +0000

That’s correct, Red. One of the considerations for selecting PM is that we see the blended/vatted malt category growing a lot, and we think that PM is a great example of how to do it right.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:14:02 +0000

You know, though CB is one of my favorite brands and it makes me feel good to see them get this award, I do feel that it’s a little unfair to the standard blends to have them compared to Glaser’s work… I’m not sure how much that bothers me– I don’t really care about standard blends much.
Are you saying with this award that where CB is is where blends as a whole are or should be heading?

By: John Glaser

John Glaser — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:59:40 +0000

Responding to Seth’s question, above…

…unfortunately, the word “blend” is the most confusing and misunderstood word in the Scotch whisky lexicon.

To most people, especially those that are not nearly as whisky-interested as you reading this blog, “blend” indicates at best those traditional Scotch whiskies made by combining grain whisky and malt whisky. At worst, it indicates (falsely) an inferior type of Scotch whisky. (Yes, there are many poor quality blended Scotch whiskies which are the reason for this perception. There are also poor quality single malt and vatted malt whiskies, but not as many examples as blended Scotch whiskies as they comprise about 90% of the market.)

Blending is also one of the skills required to make just about any whisky (Scotch or otherwise) that is not a single cask bottling. So, when you say a whisky is a blend, you may be technically correct. However, when you are referring to Scotch whisky, if you say a whisky is a “blend,” …ah, well there is where the confusion sets in.

Not helped by the recently enacted UK Scotch whisky legislation which would have us, (that is, Scotch whisky producers), by November 2011 labelling our vatted malt Scotch whiskies (also known traditionally as “pure malts,” referring to blends of whiskies made from more than one single malt, without the addition of grain whisky), (am I making myself clear?), as “blended malt Scotch whiskies.”

Perhaps I’ve said enough. Or too much. Either way, my response to Seth’s question will, hopefully, be clear? Cheers.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:09:10 +0000

Yep, that’s true. They will now be referred to “blended malt whisky” or “a blend of malt whiskies” or something similar. Which is why they are in this category, which they won. If we get enough of these whiskies (vatted/blended malts) on the market, we might create an awards category just for them next year.

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:11:23 +0000

It’s a great category. I would like to see more of these whiskies on the market. I heard the terms “vatted” and “pure malt” will no longer be used. Is this true?

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:59:35 +0000

Agreed. It’s just perception. If you tell someone it’s a blend they immediately think of Dewars or Chivas. Nothing against Dewar or Chivas, of course. I am not closed minded at all. Far from it. I’ve had blends that I think are better than single malts.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:56:45 +0000

Bourbon Collector, please see my comment to seth @12 above. Don’t be so down on blends. There are some great blends, just as there are some great single malts.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:50:26 +0000

Seth, it is indeed a blend. A blend of malt whiskies. It’s not a single malt. It contains whiskies from more than one distillery. Therefore it’s a blend. And yes, Dewar’s is a blend too. And by the way, there are some very nice Dewar’s blends, like the new 18 yr. old and Dewar’s Signature. Please try to keep more of an open mind regarding blends (both blends of malts and more traditional blends that contain grain whisky).

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:12:03 +0000

John, do you have an opinion on the word “Blend”? When I think about “Blend” I think about Dewars. Compass Box is far from that definition.

By: Seth Nadel

Seth Nadel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:03:01 +0000

I thought they’d win, but I was predicting Hedonism. I do think Spice Tree is a great Scotch. Good thing Glaser was able to satisfy the good people at the SWA. Get them mad and they will pull your product.