The Scotch Blog

Do you have any idea how this stuff is made?

I've heard of Bill Dowd - and had been told that he was a well-known and well-educated writer on the subject of Spirits.

However, I'd not had an opportunity to go to his site or read his work until today (Friday December 7, 2007) when a Google Alert let me know about a beer story that mentioned Scotch:

Dowd On Drinks: But Is It Beer?
Falls Church News Press - Falls Church,VA,USA
The world of brewing, therefore, has entered the same field of controversy as that of Scotch whisky and tequila. When the original product is changed to a ...

Controversy? In the world of Scotch? Why didn't I know about this???

I went to read the story...which turned out to be about Utopias a new "beer" from Sam Adams.

But it was these few paragraphs that caught my eye:

The world of brewing, therefore, has entered the same field of controversy as that of Scotch whisky and tequila. When the original product is changed to a marked degree, is it legitimate to include it in the same category?

Some Scotch distillers and blenders have succumbed to the lure of changing their manufacturing process to expand their product line and, ultimately, their sales.

The switch to closed-pot stills, for example, blocks the traditional smokiness of the whisky, making it more like Irish whiskey (yes, spelling the liquor with or without an "e" also is a difference between them), and maturing it in used brandy, sherry or bourbon casks further changes it.

Likewise with tequila, a Mexican spirit usually consumed young but in recent years becoming available in an "extra-aged" style that involves maturation for longer periods in used casks and results in more of a cognac-style spirit.

The bolded sections show a complete ignorance of the manufacturing and maturation processes for Scotch.

I'm not really sure what Mr. Dowd means by "closed-pot stills". I've seen a lot of pot stills, and I've never seen an open one. And is it just me or does the use of the term "used casks" sound just a little disparaging?.

The worst part of all of this is that the mention of Scotch is not only erroneous, it is a complete non sequitur, and completely unnecessary for support of his original question "Should Utopias be considered beer?". Had he simply left out this section, his article would have been an interesting musing on a topic.

According to Mr. Dowd's personal site, his column is:

distributed by both the New York Times News Service and the Hearst News Service. His writings have been published by literally dozens of North American newspapers, on numerous Web sites, and various magazines, and his work has been made available in at least 10 different countries.

I can't fault someone for success - but is it worrisome to you - as it is to me - that someone has a column that is printed around the world - and they talk about Scotch - yet they have no freaking idea how Scotch is made?

Maybe it's because I spend my time trying to educate and demystify whisky that I take particular umbrage when someone has a much broader forum than do I, yet their ignorance of the topic equates to the  spread of mis-information.

Read Mr. Dowd's Full article in one of several places

Is India being bullied?

That's what Charles MacLean, arguably "Scotland's foremost whisky writer", seems to think.

In Sunday's The Telegraph (Calcutta India), Charles MacLean, was interviewed in regard to the long-running, and imminent sale of Whyte & Mackay to the UB group.

MacLean also said the “Scottish Whisky Association has been trying to bully the Indian government” into lowering tariffs — and he forecast this, too, would happen since lower taxes would be good both for the Indian government and the Scottish whisky industry.

Wow. Does MacLean really view the very reasonable attempts by the SWA to get tariffs lowered as "bullying"?

---

<UPDATE 1: If Mr. MacLean was misquoted by the Indian Press, I certainly invite him to let everyone know that fact here on The Scotch Blog and demand a retraction from the Telegraph!>

---

Perhaps it is MacLean's existing business relationship with Mallya that is coloring his views:

In November, UB flew him to India for a hectic tour of Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Goa during when his mission was to speak about Black Dog, a brand first made by Whyte & Mackay in 1879 but now owned and marketed by Mallya.

“When someone as astute and as close to the levers of power as Vijay Mallya starts looking to secure spirit supply by buying Scotch distilleries and brands and promoting his own Scotch, Black Dog, which I helped with last November, then the writing is on the wall,” said MacLean.

MacLean must have also bought into the propaganda of the Indian government/media/beverage industry triumvirate and accepted the Indian claim that this molasses-based distilled beverage is, in fact, whisky, and not the more appropriately named "rum".

MacLean pointed out. “Bear in mind that India is the largest consumer of whisky in the world by a long chalk — 70 million cases per annum; global sales of Scotch amount to a mere 85.5 million cases. All but less that one per cent of the whisky drunk in India is locally made.”

The regulations of most nations do not agree that it can be called whisky - and every legal definition of the countries which do not allow the India spirit to be imported dictate that whisky is a distillate made from grains.

The sun never sets...

Mr. Mallya has made a ridiculous correlation between the SWA's protection of the Scottish Whisky industry and 19th century "British imperialism".

"This imposition of British imperialism is unacceptable," Mr Mallya was quoted as saying last year. "The SWA has to understand there are two sides to the coin. They have double standards. I will continue to oppose SWA coming to India until they allow us to sell in England and Scotland."

The SWA has NO desire to "go to India" they simply want to allow Scotch whisky to have a fair shot at being sold in Asia. Campbell Evans' quote from yesterday's story was on the money:

"This is often dressed up as an issue for the Scottish industry, but there are 70 countries around the world that have legal definitions that whisky be made from cereals.

If you've read The Scotch Blog in the past, you'll know that I appreciate what the SWA does on many fronts, and I disagree with them on as many. On this one, I am 150% behind them.

Fallout?

If you thought the saga of the purchase of W&M was interesting, wait until the purchase actually happens - which according to sources will (barring last-minute problems) be announced tomorrow in Glasgow for somewhere around £610m.

Will Mallya withdraw Whyte & Mackay as an SWA member? Will the SWA extend an olive branch - by way of a council seat to Mallya? Will there be a talent flight from W&M?

---

<UPDATE 2: When a member company's ownership changes, under SWA rules, that company ceases to be a member of the Association.  Anyone who is a distiller, bottler, or blender of Scotch Whisky, who is prepared to sign up to the terms of membership, can apply to join.>

---

Two things are for sure.

1. Resumes are being freshened up at Dalmore House, and
2. Willie Tait and Richard Paterson will be told not to talk to me anymore :).

NYT - Stupid, Ignorant or just plain Arrogant?

On Sunday August 20th 3006, Sunday's New York Times, a media institution which I've taken to task several times*  featured a story about Venezuela entitled "Venezuela’s Cup Runs Over, and the Scotch Whiskey Flows". The story included numerous misspellings of "whisky". Here is but a sample...

Scotch whiskey holds a rarefied place in the collective psyche of this status-obsessed country of 26 million. Per capita consumption outstrips that in relatively prosperous neighbors like Brazil and Argentina. Venezuelans, both young and old, often drink Scotch over a leisurely lunch, at family gatherings, at nightclubs, or as an aperitif, their ice-clinking glasses filled to the rim.

“Scotch whiskey has a mystique for Venezuelans that is unmatched by any other drink.”

Just because you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true...

Now here is a silly little story, full of hyperbole and wishful thinking: India beats US to become world’s largest whisky market

Where to begin?

For scots, the problem with Indian whiskies just got bigger. India has quietly emerged as the largest international whisky market, toppling the US by volume.

In order to be the top whisky market, the market has to be purchasing whisky. But the definition of every whisky producing country (with the exception of India) is that whisky is an alcoholic beverage distilled from grain.*

Indian "whisky" is distilled from molasses - the article acknowledges this:

Indian whiskies,  non-matured alcohols mostly made from molasses, and hence not considered whisky by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA)...

I've never understood the insistence of taking a beverage that is essentially rum**, and calling it whisky. And then complaining that Indian "whisky" is being kept out of the export markets. Why not simply call it "rum" and sell it freely?

Indian whiskies account for 98% of domestic whisky consumption, reporting 8-10% growth annually, which makes it one among the fastest growing whisky markets anywhere in the world.

No it does not! It makes India the fastest growing market for Indian molasses rum.

India’s emergence as the top whisky market comes at a time when it has alleged that EU and SWA, in particular, have been building non-trade barriers on definitional issues to keep Indian whiskies out of the global market. Besides the domestic market, Indian whiskies sell mostly in the Middle East and in some other Asian markets, but has no market access to the mature markets in the West.

"Definitional barriers". I love that.

I can take crack cocaine and call it rock candy - but that doesn't mean I can sell it in candy stores.

However, voices on the side of the Scotch industry tended to play down India’s ranking as the largest international whisky market. As expected, they qualified the domestic market, citing the definitional problems pertaining to Indian whiskies.

Ya think?
-------------------------------------
From the US Code of Federal Regulations Title 27, Part 5, §5.22 - The standards of identity:

* (b) Class 2; whisky. “Whisky” is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

** (f) Class 6; rum. “Rum” is an alcoholic distillate from the fermented juice of sugar cane, sugar cane syrup, sugar cane molasses, or other sugar cane by-products, produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to rum, and bottled at not less than 80° proof; and also includes mixtures solely of such distillates.

Huh????

Johnnie Walker Honored as Wine Enthusiast's 2005 Distiller of the Year!!!

That is GREAT news! My favorite distillery in the entire world is the little-known Johnnie Walker Distillery. Since you may not be familiar with it, the distillery is nestled in a beautiful, pristine valley on Tiree, one of the most lovely Hebridean Islands you'll ever visit.

The distillery has been owned and run by the same family for over 15 generations. Johnnie Walker (the 12th) is the Master Distiller for this wonderful non-peated Islay-inspired, Lowlandish, Speysider. He grows all of his own barley on his one-acre farm, which he malts, mashes and ferments by himself in a very large machine of his own design. He uses only Evian water, imported from France, for the production process and dilution.

He only produces one cask at a time, and ages each of these precious containers individually for 10 years by perching atop the cask like a mother hen. His wife of 43 years, Marybeth, fills and hand labels each bottle (she also runs the small visitor center).

The bottles are then gently swaddled in rare Cambodian silk, and then lovingly placed in a custom-made gold-hinged box constructed of petrified wood. His aged grandfather "Chuck" Walker then swims to the mainland and walks to Edinburgh where he hand-delivers each bottle to Royal Mile Whiskies - the sole purveyor of the line.

Said Johnnie Walker when informed of the distillery's award as "Distiller of the Year":

I am absolutely ecstatic that someone has finally recognized this small family-owned  distillery.

We are even more excited that it is that well-known whisky-oriented periodical "Wine Enthusiast."

For some unknown reason, the rest of the world believes that Johnnie Walker is a blended product. Which is simply NOT true.

Our line of Single Malts - which we refer to as "Red", "Black", "Gold" & our brand new, "Blue" (for the budget conscious), are all produced here at the distillery by me, my wife, and our man-servant, Hamish.

We also recently introduced a raspberry-infused cream bourbon, the first legally produced outside of the US, which we call "Green" because of it's chartreuse color.

I'd like to thank our public relations agency, the small London-based boutique firm Diageo which is helping us more firmly establish ourselves as an up and comer in the Single Malt world.

Their unending dedication to the simple idea that confusion in the Scotch whisky industry is the single biggest blight on the planet - their never-ending fight to make sure consumers are not confused between what is a Single Malt Scotch and what is a blend.

It is through their work alone that the world now knows that we are, in fact a distiller, and not a producer of something so pedestrian as a "blend."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the article above is a work of sarcasm. Nothing in the story is true EXCEPT that Wine Enthusiast DID in fact, name Johnnie Walker the "Distiller of the Year." Here are some facts to reduce potential confusion:

• A blended whisky is created when the single malt whisky of a distillery (and usually multiple distilleries) is mixed with grain whisky.
• Johnnie Walker is the brand name of a line of blended Scotches owned by Diageo.
• Johnnie Walker Red purportedly includes 35 different single malts, while Johnnie Walker Black contains 40 different single malts.
• Unlike Red, Black, Gold & Blue, Johnnie Walker Green is a vatted (or blended) malt and contains no grain whisky. In my estimation, it is a pretty good dram.
• 150 million bottles of Johnnie Walker Blended Scotch whiskies are sold each year.
• Johnnie Walker does NOT have a distillery. And if they did it would likely NOT be on Tiree.
• Diageo is NOT a small London-based Public Relations firm, but is the largest producer of alcoholic beverages in the world with a market capitalization of $44.4 billion and revenues of $12 billion which generates $3.25 billion in profit per year.

Boos and hisses to:

Wine Enthusiast - for either doing zero research, or allowing advertising dollars to sway their votes.

Had they named Johnnie Walker BRAND of the year, or marketer of the year, I'd have had no issues with the award. Had they named Johnnie Walker (any of the labels) the best tasting blend, I may have had issues with their sense of taste.

F. Paul Pacult - who is the Spirits Tasting Director at Wine Enthusiast, and should know better - however I'm starting to wonder if he isn't also an employee of Diageo. He wrote the original article selecting Johnnie Walker as "Distiller of the Year." He has a long history of writing what I consider to be Diageo "fluff" pieces. (One example of this is discussed in Integrity)

Diageo - Instead of CLARIFYING Wine Enthusiast's misinformed (easily-swayed?) award granters, and simply turning down this "award" to avoid confusion, Diageo accepts the award and issues a Press Release to tout it. Not only do the attempts to confuse Scotch drinkers continue, now they want to confuse wine drinkers.

Shame on you all.

Read the press release here: Johnnie Walker Honored as Wine Enthusiast's 2005 Distiller of the Year
Read the Wine Enthusiast article here: Distiller of the Year - Johnnie Walker Dieageo (sic) Ltd.
Here is a snippet from that article:

Innovative marketing successes and institutional pedigree duly noted, the editors of Wine Enthusiast Magazine have named Johnnie Walker Distiller of the Year primarily because of the continued, unwavering quality of the Johnnie Walker portfolio of blended Scotch whiskies. This is true, in particular, with the company’s two “core” offerings, Johnnie Walker Red Label and Johnnie Walker Black Label 12-Year-Old. These two sibling whiskies represent remarkable value, while embodying quality and sophistication. They epitomize why blended Scotch whisky is the world’s most popular kind of whisky.

The company’s triumphant foray into the superpremium and ultrapremium blended Scotch whisky categories, with Johnnie Walker Gold Label 18 Year Old and Johnnie Walker Blue Label (the latter priced at $190), has bolstered its ranking as the world’s foremost blended Scotch whisky source. The Gold Label has been lauded as one of the top blended Scotch whiskies in the world, while the Blue Label enjoys a reputation of mythic proportions among connoisseurs.

PLEASE NOTE: I want to point out QUITE CLEARLY that I include many of Diageo's products among my absolute favorites. It's the Marketing department and their duplicitous tactics which I clearly have issues with.

I'm imploring Diageo to use their leadership position to help clarify, and not confuse the general public about Scotch. I also hereby offer myself to act as their "marketing conscience."

I will only charge them a case of each of the Classic Malts and 2 cases of Guinness per calendar year. Oh, and profit sharing.

-------------------------------------------
Whisky101
I wanted to remind you all of Whisky 101. The base is growing slowly but surely - Registered users include Misako Udo, Author of The Scottish Whisky Distilleries; Ulf Buxrud, a Keeper of the Quaich & Malt Maniac; The Liquor Snob; and we've even had a Mark Reynier siting.

Stop by and share your wisdom.

Still looking for moderators, Resident Experts, and of course, people who just want to have a friendly place to discuss Scotch (and maybe even some other adult beverages).

So short, and yet, so wrong

Here's something that's sad, yet funny. And made sad and funnier still, by something I'll reveal in a bit.

The following little snippet appeared in the online version (and appears in the January 23rd print version) of Time Europe.

Life Style Easy Drinking
A round up of the latest rounds. What's new at the bar for 2006

By Lisa McLauglin

Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006
Say goodbye to single-malt snobbery. It's time to toast the arrival of more approachable — and affordable — blended whiskeys. Scotland's Jon, Mark and Robbo's Malt Scotch Whisky blends — the Smokey Peaty One, the Rich Spicy One and the Smooth Sweeter One — are already hits with the 18-to-35-year-old set in Europe.

Now American distillers like Phillips Union are hoping to crack open the U.S. market with vanilla- and cherry-flavored blends.

OK, let's get started.

• Don't know why they switch back and forth between whisky and whiskey spellings.
• Smooth Sweeter is 70% Irish (Cooley's) and 30% Scotch (Bunnahabhain) so it isn't a blended Scotch whisky (much less a "Malt Scotch Whisky blend")
• Phillips Union does make a line of flavored, blended whiskies, but as it is made in the US, it is certainly not Scotch.
• What's so snobbish about Single Malt anyway? Why are blends more approachable. Or affordable for that matter?

ANYWAY
Ok, that's a lot of grief I'm giving to a (barely) 2 paragraph piece of filler. BUT (and here is the sad/funnier thing I mentioned earlier) THE SAME EXACT little snippet appeared in the December 19th issue of the US version of TIME magazine.

But here is the kicker...I KNOW FOR A FACT that someone - a person in the Scotch whisky industry - sent a letter to TIME to point out the flaws. I know, because they copied me:

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:15 PM
To: 'letters@time.com'
Subject: Re: "Your Time" -19th December edition

Last week the venerable Wall Street Journal put its foot in it in a big way with a dreadful and inaccurate article about Scotch Whisky, and now TIME follows suit with the (thankfully) short article by Lisa McLaughlin.

For start, will someone out there please take on board the long established fact that Scotch whisky is not spelled WHISKEY ?  We Scots dispense with the E, while others prefer it (eg. American, and Irish whiskey). TIME displays a penchant for carelessness… in the lead paragraph of the article you use the correct spelling without the E, and then in the lower section headed “Big Spenders” the dreaded E shows up !  I offer my services as an eagle-eyed proofreader at a very modest fee.

While I’m at it, would you kindly explain to me, and the great unwashed out there, why blended Scotch malt whisky is necessarily more approachable and affordable than the far more distinctive single malts that abound ? The world of blended Scotch whisky, a product consisting of a mixture of single malts and grains Scotch whiskies, has been around since time immemorial, and I am at a loss as to why your writer has decreed that a mix of single malts to the exclusion of grain is magically cheaper and/or approachable than single malts, which can be had at prices below $20 and upwards.

While confessing that I have a vested interest in the issue at hand, as one who has had the good fortune to have thus far spent almost thirty years in the Scotch whisky industry, I have to say that I find your assertion that it is time to “…Say goodbye to single-malt snobbery”  (by the way – the hyphen is superfluous) absurd and wholly unsupported by any logical argument. Single malts are thriving in the U.S., consumers are undoubtedly enjoying them as growth in sales of these nectars is running well ahead of growth in blends’ sales, and the plethora of different distilleries’ wares at  prices that cover a wide spectrum which is in many instances at or below the level of many a blended Scotch, attest to the splendour of single malt which is enjoyed by people from all walks of life who harbour no sense of snobbery whatsoever when they imbibe what they simply enjoy.

There is a viable market for blended Scotch whisky (the mix of malts and grains), single malt Scotch whisky, and what we used to refer to as “vatted” malt which is now known as a blend of malts, and your publication does our industry a disservice with ill informed musings of the sort that you have just published.

Yours in some displeasure,

An industry guy I know.

So, these guys write something bad, ignore feedback from an industry person, and then reprint the same wrong stuff one month later. Funny. And sad.

Wall Street Journal, Tsk, Tsk.

I haven't had the opportunity to pick on a poorly researched article from the New York Times in a while.

Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal stepped right in, granting me a new target at which to "unleash the fury."

The following excerpts (through the glory that is the fair use doctrine) are from an article released on Saturday, December 10, 2005 in the Wall Street Journal and written by G. Bruce Knecht.

One too many "e's" in Whisky

Let's start with the title - which immediately shows that the WSJ has writers and editors who aren't qualified to write on the subject: "Whiskey's Risky Moves - Makers of scotch roll out new twists on an ancient quaff."

As YOU know, but the WSJ writers and editors obviously don't, when referring to a whisky made in Scotland, it is spelled whisky - no 'e'. But if only that were the least of the transgressions.

There are a number of small mistakes and stupid statements throughout the article, but I don't have all day,so I'll stick to the big ones. For example, the third paragraph:

The appeal of single malts is based on a singular proposition. Each spirit comes from a particular distillery and has been aged, generally for 10 years or more, a period that is usually specified on the bottle.

Silly me, I thought that the appeal of single malts was based on taste.

Do you even know how this "stuff" is made?

From the fourth paragraph:

Some distilleries, like Bruichladdich, are creating a new type of single malt by blending whiskeys of different ages.

Did you know that Bruichladdich (since it reopened in 2001) invented vatting??? Jim McEwan will be delighted to hear that he has now been credited with yet another innovation!!!

And here I had foolishly thought that distillers had been vatting the product of different casks/ages for a couple hundred years. My mistake.

Others are adding flavors by pouring their stuff into barrels that have previously been used to age different types of spirits and wines.

Whisky makers have been "pouring their stuff into barrels that have previously been used" since whisky was first transported - for several hundred years at least. Yes, I know what the writer is trying to say here. The problem is that he doesn't know what he is saying.

1.5 hour interview distilled into 2 sentences

I know that the Wall Street Journal spent quite a while interviewing Dr. Bill Lumsden of Glenmorangie at the New York Whisky Fest this past November. Are you telling me that all they walked away with was this:

"We took up so little shelf space that we weren't being noticed." says Bill Lumsden, the maker's master distiller. "So we took some of our whiskey (sic) and put it in a barrel that had been used to age port."

The author also mentions a Glenmorangie Cognac finish that "flopped." My source at Glenmorangie tells me that Bill mentioned the Cognac finish to the writer as an example of experimentation. The whisky was wholly matured, not finished in a Cognac cask. The experiment was done with a single cask, and produced 250 bottles, which sold out immediately. I'd hardly call that a flop, would you? In the end, Bill decided that the resulting whisky did not truly represent the Glenmorangie house style, so the experiment was not repeated. Another thing to note is that the Cognac experiment took nearly ten years from start to finish - I think this shows the patience of the Scotch industry. You can hardly pull off a marketing gimmick over ten years.

"Expert" Opinion????

And after deriding Glenmorangie about their line of finished products -- comparing it to a Proctor and Gamble line extension -- the author goes on to talk about the purity of the Glenlivet line:

Not every distillery has jumped on the bandwagon. Glenlivet offers just four products and it's going to stay that way, says Joe Uranga, a marketing executive with Pernod Ricard, which owns the distillery: "We believe in being true to a heritage that goes back a couple of hundred years."

Hmm. What about The Glenlivet 12 year old French Oak Finish, and the 12 year old American Oak Finish. Granted these aren't ex-Madeira casks, but the term "Finish" is proudly displayed on the label. Sounds like "brand extension" to me!

Better yet, the Joe Uranga who is quoted is apparently the Global group director for Wild Turkey.

In my book, getting a person who markets Wild Turkey to comment on Scotch is like getting a Budweiser delivery guy to comment on the nuances of Chateau Lafitte.

Another "expert" opinion which raised my ire:

Others worry the rush of new products could threaten the industry's proud heritage. 'Single Malts are like liquid history, says Nick Semaca, a senior consultant with McKinsey & Co. "You look at a bottle and think this is something they have been making in a certain way for generations. There is a mystique and aura to that, and that's the reason why it is so dangerous to tinker."

Yes, Nick Semaca does work for McKinsey, which IS a respectable and revered consulting firm. However, according to McKinsey, Nick Semaca is the Sector Leader, Americas, Travel & Logistics Practice, and he does not do consulting for the beverage industry.

Making up Stuff

At the end of the article this:

In New York, Park Avenue Liquor carried fewer than 40 single malts a few years ago. All of them were 12 years old except for one 21 years old, and none cost more than $100.

The above is quite untrue. I spoke with Jonathan Goldstein at Park Avenue Liquors. The above statement may have been true in the early 1980's (20 plus years ago), but as far back as ten years ago, Park Avenue carried a couple of hundred distinct expressions.

"Reviews"

To throw salt in the wound, the article was accompanied by a "review" of 10 expressions -- only four of which were finished expressions. And the reviewers? Well the reviews were the results of "an informal tasting among the scotch lovers on our staff."

Are you kidding me?

The Glenmorangie Madeira Wood Finish was described as "a little too metrosexual."

1. I didn't know Scotch wore Banana Republic.
2. I'm not sure if the perceived metrosexuality was referring to the nose, balance or finish.
3. Whoever said this is an idiot.

Plus, the price points which accompany the review are based specifically on the prices at Park Avenue Liquor, who supplied the Scotch for this story, but which is not necessarily representative of your local liquor store. (This is the first time I've EVER seen a 12 year-old Glenlivet priced higher than the 10 year-old Glenmorangie) They do say "Prices will vary" in the footnotes -- but couldn't they have made even a little effort?

Christ Almighty. When will established news sources start doing a decent job of reporting on the Scotch industry? How hard is it to check your facts?

I have a rolodex full of industry insiders and experts. The next time, I'll be happy as hell to give you the numbers of people who actually know what they are talking about. Me included.

----------------------------

On the Other Hand

Let's contrast this article with an article from the latest issue (December 19, 2005) of New York Magazine. They asked frequent The Scotch Blog contributor Dave “Robbo” Robertson, former master distiller of the Macallan and now partner in Jon, Mark and Robbo’s Easy Drinking Whiskey Co, to lead them through a tasting.

They acquired Scotch from a number of establishments and contacted someone who knows something. Imagine that! The result is an informative article, that I'm happy to promote as something good for the industry.

Integrity

At the risk of looking like I have a vendetta against Diageo (I don't, I am a shareholder), F. Paul Pacult (which might be assumed from this previous post - I don't, I've never met the guy), or the New York Times magazine (I don't, I just prefer actual journalism), I present the following article:

A reader from New York was nice enough to send me what appeared to be an article from the October 2, 2005 New York Times magazine. I say "appeared" since what at first glance appeared to be a three-page article was, in actuality, a three-page advertisement sponsored by Diageo.

The advertisement called "From Speyside to Stateside" is actually a well-written and informative piece and a very nice introduction to Scotch whisky (Though not as good as my book The Instant Expert's Guide to Single Malt Scotch wink, wink).

One very minor nit-pick - the title is cute and catchy, but the article talks about whiskies from all four regions: Highlands, Islay, Lowlands, and Speyside.

So what's my beef?

I just think it's underhanded to advertise your brand by disguising it as an article.

Ok, Ok, I understand this is an advertisement. The NYT clearly states at the bottom of page one:

This advertising supplement is sponsored by Diageo North America, Inc. Norwalk, CT. The material was prepared by F. Paul Pacult and Susan Woodley of Spirit Journal, Inc., and did not involve the reporting or editing staff of the New York Times.

Which is a good thing, because in this previous post I established that the research that the NYT reporting and editing staff did in regard to Scotch whisky was appalling.

Ok so what IS my beef? The article is well written and it is accurate. What exactly IS my problem?

Well, Diageo owns a lot of whisky distilleries, as well as a lot of blended brands. As a matter of fact, Diageo is the largest producer of distilled spirits in the world.

The problem I have is that most people have never heard of Diageo. So, even though the article is clearly labeled as an advertisement sponsored by Diageo, the average reader has NO idea that Diageo is the parent company of all of the brands promoted by the article.

Now let me be clear, while I generally do tastings with a variety of single malts from a variety of parent companies, I have done tastings on behalf of a particular company - using only the products of that one company. The difference is, I make it completely clear at the outset that I am there as a brand representative.

Diageo has not always been completely above board with advertising and marketing practices -e.g., the whole Cardhu Pure Malt Fiasco. But I guess it goes along with the mantra of  growth at any cost , especially when trying to make your numbers on a quarterly basis.

And as a shareholder, I DO want the best return on my money.

But I truly believe that being up-front and honest, and clearly stating that all of the brands mentioned in the article are owned by a single company would NOT have minimized the advertising impact.

I'm also seeing a pattern with the work of Paul Pacult, which looks like his work is primarily work-for-hire. I have no problem with a man making a living -- I just ask that you are up front with the fact that you are NOT an independent expert -- and let people know that your recommendations may be tainted by payments.

According to the web site,  F. Paul Pacult's Spirit Journal is "The Independent Guide to Distilled Spirits."

Can you truly be independent when you accept employment - even as a work for hire - from the companies you are rating?

It's also important to note that Paul Pacult says on his web site that he is the Special Projects Editor for The New York Times Magazine. The NYT magazine says NYT staff was not involved in the creation of this article, Pacult says he is NYT staff. So which is true?

As always I offer an open invite to anyone with dissenting opinions, including representatives of the New York Times Magazine, Diageo, or Paul Pacult, to chime in.

Yeah, yeah I know, I need to get a life and lighten up:)

Next time, write about Vodka. Please.

I love scotch.

And just as much as I love drinking it, I love promoting it.
I also love reading stories that promote it.

But I hate stories that get it wrong. One such story recently appeared in the September 18, 2005 Sunday New York Times Magazine entitled "Malt Shop."

The article starts out:

Nothing gives a man instant swagger like Scotch. One whiff, and a weakling on wall-to-wall carpet becomes Burt Reynolds (or Tom Ford) on a bearskin rug.

Huh?
I don't even know what that means. But it doesn't sound like a transformation I'm interested in.

You'll be at a disadvantage understanding my comments without having read the article. You may want to take this opportunity to read the brief, yet wholly uninformative article now, before proceeding. Download maltshop.pdf. I'll wait.

Back with me? Good!

The number of issues I have with this story are myriad. Here are but a few:

1. Its imperative that we reduce confusion regarding Single Malt Scotch and the article did not accomplish this at all.

"Scotch" should not be used as a generic term. Single malt refers to a whisky made using barley (and no other grain) and produced at a single distillery. Single malt Scotch is a protected term that refers to a single malt whisky produced and aged in Scotland. However, the article refers to single malt Scotch in the first paragraph, and then go on to name whiskies produced in Japan in the second. Bad form - and quite confusing for the uninitiated.

2. They have the production method all wrong. Whisky is never heated over peat. The malting barley is dried using the heat from a fire, which is OFTEN, but not always, fueled using dried peat. This happens LONG before the barley is even close to taking on a liquid (much less "liquor") form.

3. In all my time involved in Scotch I have NEVER heard the Lowland region referred to as "The Lowland Ladies." This may be some archaic term of "affection" for the region, but I've never heard it used. Yet the writer states that this is the official name for the region. Where in the world did THAT come from?         

4. Although Dalmore is a fine Scotch whisky, I would hardly point to it as the "typical" Highland Malt. That is a personal comment.

5. I'm sorry, but if you show up at your local spirit shop with $25 in hand, you will be disappointed by the limited selection. This stuff ain't cheap. You'll likely walk away with a blended Scotch.

6. The "years' in mouth" rule the author mentions is just hog-wash.

7. The last paragraph regarding The Macallan is disjointed, un-informative and unrelated to the core theme of the story. Obviously they needed 200 more words to fill in the page.

Ok. Take a breath. Now, repeat after me slowly:

Exposure for Scotch whisky = Good
Misinformation = Bad

Is a well-researched article from the New York Times too much to expect?

Apparently.

And just as much as I love drinking it, I love promoting it.
I also love reading stories that promote it.

But I hate stories that get it wrong. One such story recently appeared in the September 18, 2005 Sunday New York Times Magazine entitled "Malt Shop."

The article starts out:

Nothing gives a man instant swagger like Scotch. One whiff, and a weakling on wall-to-wall carpet becomes Burt Reynolds (or Tom Ford) on a bearskin rug.

Huh?
I don't even know what that means. But it doesn't sound like a transformation I'm interested in.

You'll be at a disadvantage understanding my comments without having read the article. You may want to take this opportunity to read the brief, yet wholly uninformative article now, before proceeding. Download maltshop.pdf. I'll wait.

Back with me? Good!

The number of issues I have with this story are myriad. Here are but a few:

1. Its imperative that we reduce confusion regarding Single Malt Scotch and the article did not accomplish this at all.

"Scotch" should not be used as a generic term. Single malt refers to a whisky made using barley (and no other grain) and produced at a single distillery. Single malt Scotch is a protected term that refers to a single malt whisky produced and aged in Scotland. However, the article refers to single malt Scotch in the first paragraph, and then go on to name whiskies produced in Japan in the second. Bad form - and quite confusing for the uninitiated.

2. They have the production method all wrong. Whisky is never heated over peat. The malting barley is dried using the heat from a fire, which is OFTEN, but not always, fueled using dried peat. This happens LONG before the barley is even close to taking on a liquid (much less "liquor") form.

3. In all my time involved in Scotch I have NEVER heard the Lowland region referred to as "The Lowland Ladies." This may be some archaic term of "affection" for the region, but I've never heard it used. Yet the writer states that this is the official name for the region. Where in the world did THAT come from?         

4. Although Dalmore is a fine Scotch whisky, I would hardly point to it as the "typical" Highland Malt. That is a personal comment.

5. I'm sorry, but if you show up at your local spirit shop with $25 in hand, you will be disappointed by the limited selection. This stuff ain't cheap. You'll likely walk away with a blended Scotch.

6. The "years' in mouth" rule the author mentions is just hog-wash.

7. The last paragraph regarding The Macallan is disjointed, un-informative and unrelated to the core theme of the story. Obviously they needed 200 more words to fill in the page.

Ok. Take a breath. Now, repeat after me slowly:

Exposure for Scotch whisky = Good
Misinformation = Bad

Is a well-researched article from the New York Times too much to expect?

Apparently.

Who chooses what's No 1???

Note: I'm sure you'll be reading the following in a number of places if, like me, you get a regular feed of whisky related stories. This very "article" is a big part of the reason why, unlike all of the whisky news and information sites, I don't simply post press releases.

"Highland Park named world's No 1 spirit"

According to a recent story in the Scotsman (link at the bottom), The American Spirit Journal, "a leading drinks magazine" has named Highland Park 18 year old the best spirit in the world. Not just the best whisky, mind you, but the best spirit.

    The problem is there is no American Spirit Journal!!!

Even aside from that little fact- I'm a little suspicious of stories like this. I mean how do you compare and judge a whisky (or ALL whiskies) against the numerous tequilas, vodkas and gins?

I want more information. Who were the judges? How were they judged? Just what is "The American Spirit Journal," since it doesn't really exist?

A little reading and research goes a long way. And obviously reporters don't do either.

Let's look closer. According to the Scotsman article,

The Highland Park 18-year-old single malt topped a list of the world's 100 best distilled spirits, published in the American Spirit Journal. The list was compiled by the American drinks specialist Paul Pacult, who judged thousands of whiskies, rums, gins, vodkas, tequilas and other distilled spirits for the list. He said: "Out of the hundreds of whiskies from Scotland, Canada, the US, Japan, India and Ireland, Highland Park 18-year-old is the finest of them all and right now is my favourite distilled spirit.

Ah, Paul Pacult. Yes, he is a writer on the topic of spirits, with four solid books under his belt. Though two of those books appear to be written on behalf of the companies on whom the subject matter is based (Chivas Brothers & Jim Beam). But as stated above, there is no American Spirit Journal. So where was this list of best spirits published?

Could it be in the F. Paul Pacult's Spirit Journal which DOES exist?

If so, this means that Paul has decided to rate his favorite liquors, in his self published journal.

Does he have the right to name his "favourite distilled spirit?" Absolutely.

But Paul's personal preference was disseminated, via press release, as if it were an actual award. And of course, the release was scooped up and further disseminated by Highland Park. And those news hungry reporters turn the press release into a story.

Don't you think that releasing Paul's personal favorites as a news story is a little silly?

Highland Park IS a great whisky. But is it the best? To Paul, obviously. To you and me? Maybe, maybe not.

If you want to rate "the best" how about you start by convening  panel of experts including MacLean, Jackson, Murray and some select others. Now that would have some weight with me. (Note 8/3/05: Brett from Binny's reminded me that Whisky Magazine recently released their 3rd "Best of the Best" list which is done with blind tastings by panel judges. Highland Park 18 y.o. did not make that list.)

I doubt though, that this prestigious group would agree on a single "best."

I think any promotion of the whisky industry is a good thing, and helps bring new drinkers in. But getting new drinkers is all about helping them find what they like. Not pushing a single, expensive bottle, based on one person's opinion.

Read the press release here.

But keep an eye on this; and you'll see the media 'chain reaction' begin,with reporters beginning to grab, in ever smaller pieces, the parts of the story they want. The story will soon morph into a one liner: "Highland Park voted best whisky in the world" without much of the background info.

Oh wait, it already started. This from today's  Yahoo! alert on whisky.

Oh, by the way, I hereby declare Laphroaig Cask Strength to be the best whisky. And Hendricks Gin to be the best spirit in the world. Well at least they are MY favorites.