Talk:Scotch whisky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mostly undated questions and comments added at the start

---

Blended, pure malt, single malt. Who can explain it the article ?

---

Not sure what "pure malt" is, but I'm starting a tree of Single-Malts which will I think eventually end up including reviews of many/most/all? of them. (WikiDave)

---

Isn't somebody doing a whisky wiki sub-project? Surely this page should be linked in? quercus robur 01:32 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

this one? Wikipedia:WikiProject Malt Whisky

---

How about this: http://www.whiskypedia.tk  ?? (jr)

---

"Pure malt": You might be thinking of Pure Pot Stills, which are a kind of Irish Whiskey. They're not blends, because they're made in a single batch using only barley, but they're not single malts because some of the barley is left unmalted. I don't think any Scotch is made this way, but, to be sure, I don't know very much.

---

Correction: There is such a thing as "pure malt scotch." Most blends contain both single malt whisky and grain whisky. "Pure malt" is blended scotch, but a blend made only from malts: no grain whiskies. I suppose that means it falls somewhere in between blended (as that is normally meant) and single malt scotch. You don't see "pure malt" very often though.

Correction to your correction: This is a falsified truth, a lie and i can prove it. Think about it, nothing is exactly pure because by definition pure means perfect. And Last time i checked 99.9% of existance is not considered as perfect. Just something to ponder upon.

I pondered. And I must disagree, much as I enjoy pedantry. In my dictionary some of the definitions for pure are clean, unsoiled, unmixed, not adulterated, free from guilt or defilement, chaste, and that and only. For a word to be used correctly it only has to match one definition, and that and only seems to do the trick. Even before we get into excellent, fine, which it matches too, but probably wasn't the intention. Notinasnaid 17:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

The more common term for Pure Malt Scotch is Vatted Malt, and yes, it consists of Single Malts "vatted" together, without any grain whisky added. - Gentgen Oct 7 2003

I just added info on vatted malts to the page, and did a major re-org. Gentgeen

On http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/ they consistently use "Scotch Whisky" rather than "Scotch whisky" . Is it worth as page move? Mintguy (T)

---

Not sure I am using this page correctly. Regarding "pure malt", it is only recently that this term has come to be equated with vatted malt. For decades the term Pure Malt meant exactly the same as Single Malt. Many, many distilleries put the term pure malt rather than single malt on their single malts. It wasn't until a couple of years ago when Diageo tried to switch Cardhu from a single malt to a vatted malt and used the term pure malt on the label that this was even a matter of debate. However there are still lots of single malts labelled as Pure Malt or Scotch Malt or some other term other than single malt on the market so it is confusing to tell people that pure malt means vatted malt, when clearly the majority of pure malts they might buy in the store or on e-bay are really single malts with an older label on them.

---

I see that you have added statement extensively throughout the scotch entries, I don't believe that this is true at all, could you produce some evidence? I know of many instances in the past where bottles were labeled as "Malt" But Pure Malt being synonymous with Single Malt? I also dispute that there are ""lots of single malts labelled as Pure Malt or Scotch Malt or some other term other than single malt on the market""

---

Hi - yes, The Glenfiddich Pure Malt is the best known but a few years ago on Malts-L they complied a list of about 20 different distilleries that used the term Pure Malt rather than Single Malt. There are other variants like 'all malt' or 'unblended' and so on. I think people who are new to the game are confused by the new SWA definitions that fell out of the Cardhu affair. Given the current interest in old bottles many of these pure malts (that really are single malts) are appearing on the market, especially on e-bay and such and there are still ots of them in well-stocked bars.

---

Wow, Maltmaven, comments like this will not endear you to many editors. Regardless: This is meant to be a reference for regular people, NOT whisky anoraks. As such "on the market" means currently available through standard outlets and not the rare or collectible resale market or a whisky bar with 200 + bottlings. Pure Malt is NOT a current standard. So instead of editing every entry having to do with whisky, perhaps a single paragraph explaining your position would suffice? Scotchblog

Dram

Hi, does anybody know how much "one drum" of Whisky is? In Scottish bars, this is the normal size for a drink, but it's certainly not as little as a fluid dram

A dram is just a colloquial name for a serving of whisky, so far as I know. Whether or not it's a formal measure, that's how it's used ("would you like a dram" in a Scottish house is an invitation to an amount of whisky decided by the host's generosity). It isn't the legal name for the amount that is served, which is quoted in millilitres. Notinasnaid 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A dram was indeed one measure, which used to be one fifth of a gill in Scotland. (Wikipedia has no page about the gill as a unit of measure). Nowadays its metric, as noted above. --Nantonos 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no source to support this exact definition. Warrack's The Scots Dialect Dictionary defines dram, n a glass of whisky, v to drink, tipple. Chambers Dictionary, 1988, defines dram, n a contraction of drachm: 1/16 or formerly 1/8 ounce avoirdupois; a small drink of alcoholic liquor; a tipple, vt to drink a dram.

So, this gives specific measurements, for a unit called a dram. Avoirdupois backs up the idea that a dram, technically, is 1/16 ounce. Now, the serving measure in a Scots pub was indeed until recently 1/5 gill, a fluid measure of 5 fluid ounces (per Gill (unit)), in other words one fluid ounce. Fluid ounces and ounces are not interchangeable, but if we assume water as the measured material they very nearly are. So a pub measure in scotland was either 8 or 16 "drams" if it is used as a measurement. I therefore conclude that the use of "dram" to mean "a measure of whisky" has only a loose historical connnection to the idea of "dram" to mean a particular amount of stuff, and that a dram was never a formal term for a pub measure (though of course a pub would treat an order for a "dram" as a request for a single measure, just as an order of a "whisky" or a "wee hauf" would be). I speculate (without any supporting evidence) some common ground in going to the apothecary for a "dram" of medicine. Anyway, even the most parsimonious of Scots would hesitate to serve a guest with an amount equal to 1/8 or 1/16 pub measures! Notinasnaid 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How long

does Scotch Whiskey keep once you open a bottle?

So long as you close the bottle... well, some people say that whisky starts to deterioriate once opened. I haven't noticed this especially, except that very old and delicate whisky might lose some of its finesse after a few months. Also, a small amount at the bottom of an otherwise empty bottle seems to deteriorate. In no case will it go off, it will just lose quality, even after years. A bed of nitrogen should preserve the whisky as it does for wine; I haven't tried it, however. Notinasnaid 07:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This, btw, counts for all distilled spirits with an alcohol content of over 20%, saving cream drinks which can shift.

217.166.90.180 14:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Distillation

This page contains a great summary. It'd be great to add more detail on some of the distinguishing factors among whiskies, including shapes of the pot stills. In visits to distilleries and tastings, I found it fascinating to see all of the differences in how they are made, and in how strongly two distilleries a short distance from one another (e.g. Laphroaig and Bunnahabhain). One step in the process that's not covered here that'd be interesting is how a spirit safe is used, and also how taxes are evaluated.

• My two cents on this. Laphroig uses steer mashes coming from beer brewing (from Whitbread, company that holds Laphroig) so the circuit to put and mix liquids is quite different from traditional ones. --3rz8 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some erroneous Info here. Laphroaig does a percentage of their own malting on site. The rest is purchased from mainland malsters.

Whitbread does not own Laphroaig. Jim Beam Brands/Beam World-wide does. I believe the Whitbread Brewery is owned by a Belgian company, nd the Whitbread Company in the UK which used to own the brewery only owns restaurants now - and no breweries. --scotchguy, 22 August 2006

--3rz8 15:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I apologise for mistake, Laphroig WAS owned by Whitbread Group from 1975 (later called James Burrough Limited)(some reference here http://www.islaywhiskysociety.com/laphroaig/index.html ) them it took over to Jim Beam. In 2003 (my last visit there) steel mashes were same used for beer production (dismissed from a brewery).

Dewar's

Shouldn't Dewar's be included somewhere in this article since it is a Scotch Whisky. I'd write something in myself but to be honest I don't know what classification of Scotch Whisky it falls under. Misterrick 04:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't a complete list of whiskies, there are just a very few examples listed from out of the many hundreds. So I don't think it needs to be added here. If you can write a whole article on it, that would be a good thing, provided you can find enough to say (at least two paragraphs). You'd want to mention all five of the blends that Dewar's make. Notinasnaid 11:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Production

I did a fair bit of overhaul on the production. Im not a native speaker, and i'm a little dyslectic on top of that, so feel free to correct all spelling/grammer issues you find.Martijn Hoekstra 14:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Change removed?

I had added a link to http://www.whisky-distilleries.info which is a great resource for distillery history. Any reason why it was later edited out??

70.130.158.104 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)JohnnyRnR

Deleted "list of scotch whiskies" section

I will delete this section which had just four whiskies. There is already Category:Whiskies, which can be subdivided if necessary, and this arbitrary list of 4 doesn't seem to add anything. If it is really needed, long (and this would be long) lists should be separated to their own article. If the intention was to list world's most popular scotch whiskies, the heading needs to say so, to avoid it becoming a link farm. I also removed some lesser known whiskies from the examples: these are just notable examples, not complete lists. I have removed Balbair before; if you really think it is notable enough, please discuss here rather than starting a revert war. Notinasnaid 14:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Regional variants

This section needs a tidy.

• Scotland (i.e. the country) has never been divided into those four regions. If there were four traditional whisky-producing regions then say exactly that (and give a reference for this please).
• The use of digits and "&" rather than words is not the correct style.
• The "depending on who you are talking with" phrase is not encyclopaedic style
• The "The differences & similarities, like all things with Scotch, make for endless discussions. " sentence is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.
• It would be much better for the reader if just one good source was used (e.g. The Whisky Guide) and referenced. It isn't really that interesting that different sources have different divisions. In fact, don't bother giving a definite number at all - just list the regions that you think are worth mentioning.
• It should be explained why the grouping is useful - there are taste similarities. Each region should have a sentence or two indicating the defining features of that region (geography and taste, etc).
• It may be interesting (as the above web page states) to note that the Campbeltown region is really a historical artifact - one wouldn't create a region round just two distilleries).

Colin°^Talk 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Talisker appears under both Highland and Island. It is distilled on the Isle of Skye - the only whisky from that island. Therefore it is definitely only and island malt!

Actually, the islands are not always considered separate from the Highlands when discussing category. The distinction is not based on geography as much as it is on flavor, and the island malts have much in common with Highland malts. Island malts should be listed as a subsection of Highland malts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.228.178 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

---

True that there needs to be a small tidying. However the fact is that there are NOT taste similarities among regions - nor are there UNIVERSALLY recognized regions. One fact is though that no entity (Incluing the Scotch Whisky Association) recognizes The Islands as a region - But some editors insist on listing it - hence differing views. Also I would certainly dispute that The Whisky Guide should be held up a the "good source" There are a number of sites and many of them differ.

Photos

This article would be greatly improved by some pictures of the various stills, vats, barrels, etc. Colin°^Talk 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Macallan

The Macallan is listed as being from the Speyside region, but it is self-described as "Highland Scotch Whisky" - what gives?

Some research. (1) two reference books say it is Speyside (2) http://www.themacallan.com/index_uk.html says "single malt Highland scotch" (3) the same page says "The Macallan distillery on Speyside". Some guesswork: "Highland" is not a regulated term on Scotch Whisky, and the marketing department thought it would sell better that way. Notinasnaid 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotchblog 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Speyside is situated within the Highland region, so a distillery in Speyside can refer to itself as Highland - because in truth, it is. Macallan chooses to refer to itself as a Highland Malt, but it is literally set next to the Spey river in what is referred to as the Speyside region.

Last sentence of intro

Due to an issue with the confusing and misleading term "Pure Malt", the Scotch Whisky Association recently introduced new terminology, whereby a "Vatted Malt" is to be referred to as a "Blended Malt" this has met with much push-back from the industry.

2 problems.

1. due to an issue What issue? The the confusion the issue or is the issue something else?
2. What does push-back mean? Is it just 'resistance'? Or something else?

Ashmoo 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Whisky" in British English

In Great Britain, the term whisky almost always refers to Scotch whisky, and the term "Scotch" is rarely used by itself.

Up to a point. It's true of Scotland, but speaking as an English drinker of (mostly Scotch) whisky, I don't think it's true of the rest of Great Britain. Few English and Welsh bars and pubs restrict themselves to whisky from Scotland, and it's unusual to hear customers ask for 'whisky' without qualification. However, this may be a modern development, as drinking habits have become more varied over the last 30 years or so.

Countersubject 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence in the section about the name.

The sentence reads: No whisky other than Scotch whisky may be made in Scotland. This sounds very very strange in my eyes, and I'd love to see a source for it. If no source provided, I'll remove it since I doubt it can be true.--vidarlo 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A little research produces the text of the Scotch Whisky Act 1988: "1.—(1) It shall be unlawful—

(a) to produce in Scotland; or

(b) to keep in Scotland for the purpose of maturation; or

(c) to keep or use in Scotland for the purpose of blending,

a distillate of spirits produced as described in the definition of whisky contained in section 3(1) of this Act unless it is or, as the case may be, has been produced as described in any definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order under that section."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880022_en_1.htm would be a good source.

Why such a law? Actually, it sounds very likely. Scotch whisky enforces certain minimum standards on Whisky (e.g. aging time) which other kinds of whisky, or generic whisky, may not. Some producers might be tempted to produce (more cheaply) generic whisky and sell it, not label it Scotch whisky, but rely on a Scottish location to convey an impression that the contents are "Scotch whisky". Notinasnaid 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed today two additions by the same editor, for different reasons. 1. An external link. Removed because it was put at the start of the list. Sorry, this behaviour is characteristic of self promotion. There seem to be rather too many sites which are added because they are "about whisky" rather than adding to the article; some more removal is called for. 2. Four books were added to the "References" section. They were:

• Barnard, Alfred (1905). How To Blend Scotch Whisky. London. Joseph Causton & Sons. No ISBN
• Broom, Dave (1998). Whiskey - A Connoisseur's Guide. London. Carleton Books Limited. ISBN 1 85868 706 3
• Broom, Dave (2000). Handbook of Whisky. London. Hamlyn. ISBN 0 600 59846 2
• Wishart, David (2006). Whisky Classified - Second Edition. London. Pavillion Books. ISBN 1 86205 716 8

The reason to remove them is that this was a new editor, and so I rather suspect that these were not references used in the writing of the piece; rather that the editor misunderstood the list of books as an open list of books about whisky. To the editor: please do discuss, new knowledge and outlook is always welcome, but it can take a while to get the hang of what belongs in articles. Notinasnaid 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

reply from Maltmaven: OK, If you will note, I made many small but significant changes throughout the body of the text. It included a number of errors and misconceptions. I will move the link to the bottom; it is an excellent source for all the processes of whisky making. I thought the convention nowadays was to add new content at the top. Really, the list would be better in alphabetical order.

Barnard's book refers to aging, Broom's two books are good sources of information I used to correct some of the misconceptions (ie use of heat rather than smoke to dry malt), though most of this stuff i know by heart. Wishart's book on classifying flavours did not contribute directly to my edits.

I appreciate your understanding of my role as a new editor and acknowledge that it may take some time for me to get tht hang of it. I hope I don't mess things up too much in the process.

MALTMAVEN

Thanks for replying. I think if you check the history you'll find you weren't logged in for some or all of your edits, so the addition to References appears as the first edit by a new anonymous user... Notinasnaid 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is an encyclopedia we want to use well-respected resources. Barnes is THE leading authority on Scotch whisky even this long after his death and it is most appropriate to include his re-released book as a reference. Maltmaven 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Maltmaven

Can you get an ISBN so we can judge for ourselves please? Otherwise I'd say it stays off. --Guinnog 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maltmaven: thanks for your constructive feedback. As I said, I am new here. I did not intend to be nasty and I do apologize. I'll back off for now and see what happens to the page. This article and two other related ones touch many of the current hot issues on the various discussion boards, but are a little weak on the basics. I hoped to contribute. Perhaps we might try actually citing our sources rather than simply listing them. In any case I'll resist any further editing until I've learned the protocol. I'm not going away mad, I'm just going to take some time to learn how to contribute as constructively as others have. Thanks for drawing my attitude to my attention. Maltmaven 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources is a good idea, it overcomes many ambiguities. You can use the new <ref> tag to automatically generate references at the end, while citing inline. Notinasnaid 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading this any more, but I thought it might be helpful to post a few policy links: Be Civil; Assume Good Faith; No Personal Attacks. Please let's maintain the usually high standards. Everyone. Notinasnaid 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Maltmaven: Excellent advice. I have removed my comments that others found disagreeable.

External Links

--ScotchGuy 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Here is my input on the issues (links) that were needlessly brought up by people who do not have a history of contributing to this article. But be that as it may...

The Scotch Blog - IS a "blog" but is a well-respected source of info. I have used this site for bg on some of my (many) edits. But I've been accused of shilling for the site, so make your own mind up about it.

The Edinburgh Malt Whisky Tour — Out of date (2003) - should be removed

Scotch Whisky Association - official site, should definitely stay

The Scotch Malt Whisky Society - Commercial org - should go

Whiskyfun Tasting - A "Blog" but excellent tastingnotes froma "malt Maniac"

Whisky Magazine Online - Magazine site, commercial with limited information

Whisky Podcast - A "PodCast" good info, but just the news - If Blog are all removed, this needs to be removed

The Whisky Guide - Commercial site - should be removed

Whisky-news.com - A great site, but more or less a Blog as well

Distillery Pronunciation Guide - no opinion, useful, but not a source for the article as far as I can tell

Malt Madness

Site/blog that offers extensive, (to my eyes/nose) independent, tasting notes, a beginner's guide to drinking whisky, and lots more.. (also listed on dmoz). While using "blogs" as sources might be rather less than desirable in general, the problem with taste is that the "expert" market tends to be run by people who are paid by the companies they're reviewing, and as such these 'independent' blogs do seem to serve a purpose, at least as long as the content is checked beforehand for being informative/descriptive rather than unqualifiedly normative. MM also has sister blogs, as well as a (self-named) "Matrix" in which the ratings of a number of different tasters can be compared (although reviews aren't given in the Matrix itself, but those of some of them can be found in other parts of the website (Found here) Boombaard (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm against having links (and books) added which are not sources for the article. Bottomline is that ALL of these articles are a mess and the quibbling over the links does little to solve the core issues.

Good to see some discussion of this. I'd like to suggest that anyone interested in this area read Wikipedia:External links, which is the closest thing we have to a policy in Wikipedia, and especially the section "Links normally to be avoided". By my reading we should certainly remove all the blog links (I only removed the one link self-identified as a blog). Now, let's have some more discussion. Notinasnaid 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--ScotchGuy 14:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)I agree with having discussion, but I have a problem with people who people come along and edit articles when they don't know the subject matter or the source material - so someone thinks that a site from professor is "good" (but they don't know it is out of date, or leaves a commercial site; and removes a self-proclaimed "blog" but leaves a self=proclaimed "podcast". What's the difference between a "blog" and a "podcast" or an "html website" - it's not the technology used it is the content. So what I am saying,is that all blogs aren't "bad" just because they are blogs. I agree that we have a lot of self-promotion here (Notinasnaid, you've been involved in a lot of the back and forth over time) but having self-proclaimed "keepers of the rules" who ONLY watch the recent changes pages and run around making edits, based on application of rules and NOT on knowledge of the topic, are ruining a lot of articles. Look at my history - I ONLY edit the whisky pages, because that's what I know - but there are plenty of people who popped up with the past few months and have deemed themselves administrators.

--ScotchGuy 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) - I just went through and removed links one at a time and gave my reasons for doing so. This is a start. please feell free to discuss or explain why you are removing other sites - In MY mind, JUST because it is a "Blog" is NOT reason enough - is it completely opinion; is it of a commercial nature; is it of a personal nature- THESE should be the criteria, not matter WHAT technology is used. Thanks

Hi, I've been removing some links from the generic Whisky article, pretty much for the same reasons you've noted above. A couple of links might be appropriate for this article instead:

• Single malt whisky site; distillery info, bottle shots and nosing and tasting notes.
• Scotland Whisky Site supported by VisitScotland and the Scotch Whisky Association to assist distillery visits.

Here's a link I didn't remove, but might also be appropriate here...

• For Peat Sake Whisk(e)y reviews, worth duplicating as a link perhaps?

i've looked at that site in the past, but other than that the info seems at least in part dated, the lack of consistently informative reviews drove me to look on and find Malt Madness (mentioned above) Boombaard (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Drying using Smoke

Having toured the Glengoyne distillery several years ago, I was led to beleive that their drying technique is 100% air drying.

I would suggest an edit of: "When the desired state of germination is reached, the malted barley is then dried. Most distillers use smoke in the drying process, but some (e.g. Glengoyne) use air drying only without the exposure to any smoke. Many (but not all) distillers add peat to the fire to give an earthy peaty flavour to the whisky."

Comments?

CorradoVT 16:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

Hi All, I give up. I have removed maps made by "Brian Gotts" numerous times. He keeps putting them back. They are wrong. 1. The islands is not a region. 2. His Speyside isn't even in the right place 3. He originally didn't even have Islay on the map I will suggest that someone replace his map with a correct one form any of a dozen sources - including the SWA.

No wonder these entries are a shambles. --ScotchGuy 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I observe that the map quotes three sources. Is the problem that the sources are wrong, or that the information is incorrectly transcribed from the sources? Notinasnaid 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Parallel discussion: Talk:Single malt Scotch#Map Notinasnaid 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of categories

I have observed two categories are being filled in: Category:Scottish Malt Whisky Category:Scottish blended whisky. I think some discussion is needed. In particular

• The names have inconsistent capitalisation
• Surely it is "Scotch whisky", the name "Scottish whisky" would generally be considered a poor translation or something on a fake? Note that the supercategory Category:Whiskies is not broken down purely geographically, it includes Category:Bourbon whiskies.
• I'd like to open discussion on the proposition that the division into two categories is artifical or misleading, since almost all the distillers listed in the first category make whisky for blending.

Comments? Notinasnaid 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Production areas

I removed the following:

In 2005, the Scotch Whisky Association released new guidelines for nomenclature‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Many in the industry feel that the new guidelines do little to clarify confusion among consumers, and some believe they create new confusion‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

I couldn't find any sources for it on the website of the Scotch Whisky Association. 'Many in the Industry' is weasel wording aswell. If there are any sources for this, feel free to rephrase it and put it back (with source). Martijn Hoekstra 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoyment

Can anyone add a section about drinking scotch? What is the best/most traditional way to enjoy it? Neat, on the rocks, mixed, etc? Cold or room temperature? Is it ok to store it in the freezer with the vodka? isn't there an entire art of pairing scotch with cigars? There were my questions, and I was disappointed that they weren't included in this article. 75.73.41.41 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this. It's what I was looking for, and came away empty handed. Aaadddaaammm 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put it on the page, but generally scotch whiskey is taken neat, on the rocks, or with a splash of water. The water is generally accepted to help expand the flavor. A bit of air time also brings out the flavor--7 minutes is, I believe, reviewer standard, and also entirely arbitrary. Scotch is very rarely mixed except in the case of drinks like a scotch and soda (exactly what it sounds like, although soda refers to soda water, not coke). Beware cocktails which call for scotch--the flavor varies so greatly across regions and distilleries that you can end up just wasting your whiskey. Scotch should be stored at room (or cellar) temperature. The reason for is that water from melting ice both softens the dram and, as I mentioned, expands the flavor; if the scotch is below freezing, the ice won't melt. Worse, the cold numbs the flavor and aroma. This is also why it is usually only served with a few rocks: pouring a dram over a collins glass full of ice chills it too much. It can end up bitter and sluggish. I wish I knew about pairing scotch with cigars, although I suspect that you're thinking about brandy or cognac. I think a bit about serving is not out of place in this article. There is certainly a bit of history and methodology to it, especially as far as scotch reviews are concerned. 132.236.75.82 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To expand on the comment about mixing, one should never use a single malt scotch in a mixed drink. For example, the Rob Roy is a tasty cocktail, but the sweet vermouth and bitters will mask the subtleties of a fine single malt. Use a blended whisky, such as Dewar's or Chivas, and save the single malts for sipping. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mashing & Fermentation

I changed the description of the mashing process. See mashing for details. JephSullivan 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whyte and Mackay

Can some Scotch experts help fill out Whyte and Mackay? Badagnani 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Instead of having a row of whiskies in boxes as the main image, does anyone else think that going with an image of the beverage in the glass as wine and beer do would be better? I think showing off commercial examples are important, but it seems odd that there isn't an actual picture of a dram on this page. Nestorius (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How to Taste Single Malt Scotch

I think that it would be important to include a section on tasting Single Malt Scotches. Something like this: [1]

I just found it online and, from my experience with Scotch, it seems to be a good and authoritative introduction.

Let me know what you think.

Best,

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.144.114 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Classic Malts

The so-called "Classic Malts" are simply the six brands of Whisky owned by United Distillers (which in turn is owned by Diageo). The name and the presentation (most bars have them side-by-side in a special display stand provided by UDV) are intended to give consumers the impression that they have been specially selected, perhaps by an independent board, as the most representative whisky from each traditional region, whereas they are in fact two Highlands, an Island, a Lowland, a Speyside and an Islay. All six are excellent whiskies, but they have no special status among Scotch single malt whiskies and do not deserve to be singled out in this article. They already have their own article. DES (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

"This definition is currently under review and new legislation is expected in the spring of 2008."

Could somebody possibly update this article with the new legislation, if available? «Acc3ss» 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

pure malt?

Regardless of the history of the term, or the hair-splitting by experts (I like both, by the way), "Pure Malt" is a term that non-experts in the UK will see every day - on supermarket "own-label" whiskies. In this context it almost certainly does NOT mean "single malt" (supermarket own-label single malts are usually labelled as such - without identifying the distillery, of course). Given that the supermarket "pure" malts do not contain grain, but come from more than one distillery, there's no legal need to use the word "pure" - because "vatted malt Scotch" or simply "malt Scotch" would be accurate. Presumably supermarkets feel that the first term would mean little to non-experts, and perhaps they feel that people will think "pure malt" is the same thing as "single malt" (a term which everyone has heard of as a "good thing", even if they don't really know what it means), or even "purer" in some way. (Chris Jones, Sheffield) (217.43.75.231) 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Connosr

Whisky Connosr [2] is the fastest growing whisky site and it seems only social network dedicated to whisky. Is it worth a mention in this article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieltee (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not to do that. I don't see how linking to that site would help this article, and I dispute the assertion that the site is anything special. Fastest growing according to whom? What makes a site a social network? Is that the same thing as a discussion forum? —BarrelProof (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations required for common opinions

I'm seeing lots of these appear in Wiki in the past couple years, and I'm wondering how one goes about getting a citation to a commonly accepted truth, or obtaining said citation, what value it has. Can I write to some folks in Scotland and ask them why they blend their whisky? Is that sufficient? Or do I have to write a letter to my local newspaper and get them to publish this in an editorial so that I can make a formal quoted citation?

You blend single-malt whisky because alone they're too harsh. If you doubt, taste a single malt yourself. No citation should be required for this. And even if you had four score citations saying that Ian O'Dell of Dublin blends single-malts and re-ages them in a separate process because single malt whisky is too harsh in falvor, what value is that? It doesn't make it less or more true because it's quoted more often or even once. It's an opinion, and the reader is free to discover for themselves. So, can we dispense with this "citation required" when it refers to an opinion?

Here's your quote, on this, the fifteenth day of the year two-thousand ten, I, Rod Boggess, declare that single-malt whiskys are blended to make blended malt whisky because the flavor of single-malt whisky is too harsh. Feel free to quote this in your citation as often as you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.6.29 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: you can look on About.com for a confirming opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.6.29 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Can I suggest that someone change the picture as the 'Whiskey' spelling (just visible round the curve of the bottle) seems to contredict the whisky vs. whiskey debate on the page. --Neo July 2, 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Lol - since I wrote this the following line has appeared on the page...

If it says Scotch Whiskey or Scottish Whiskey it is possibly counterfeit.

this really tickled me :> --Neo July 3, 2005 17:09 (UTC)

I can see why you'd think that, but if you look at the high resolution image, you'll see it's the real McCoy. Notinasnaid 3 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Foreshots and redistillation

In the Distillation section, when talking about the foreshots, it says:

These are generally saved for further distillation.

This is not correct. The foreshots are usually (sometimes?) discarded, due to their very high levels of acetone, methanol, and ethyl acetate. The next cut, the 'heads', is kept for re-distillation. This may just be an issue of terminology, not all distillers draw a distinction between the foreshots and the heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.254.134.10 (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Blended "Corn" & "Grain"... Meaning what?

In this article "grain" is mentioned. What grains precisely? I have read elsewhere the word "corn" but I have a hard time picturing maize being grown in Scotland, especially in the nineteen century when blended whisky was developed. In England the word "corn" means "grain", not necessarily maize... while in north america this word refers to maize exclusively. Can anybody please clarify this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.43.117 (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Read it again - it says so in the text: "malted barley (to which only whole grains of other cereals may be added)"--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but still my original question remains unanswered: What "other grains"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How about wheat, rye, or oats? In modern times, those plus maize could be likely candidates. I don't think there's a requirement that it be locally grown, so today the question of whether maize is grown in Scotland or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Obfuscating distillery names' "citation needed"

"To avoid potentially sticky legal issues, some independent bottlings do not reveal the distillery of the whisky, using a manufactured brand name, a geographical name instead such as Old St Andrews or a number systems.[citation needed]" -- it seems that rather than citations, what we need are examples, and they abound (SMWS and Blackadder spring immediately to mind). What's the best way to use these, do you think? Joshua McGee (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanding History Section?

I am interested in expanding the history section to include a broader, though still encyclopedic, augmentation to the quality additions already in place. What would you consider to be the high points? I would like to expand the phylloxera epidemic especially, and mention the turmoil that beset the market at the turn of the century. Staysharp (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency of ABV, abv, and a.b.v.

Throughout the article, "alcohol by volume" is inconsistently abbreviated ABV, abv, and a.b.v. It's not at all a critical matter — just something I thought I'd get input on before I made any changes. The page for alcohol by volume lists the first two as acceptable. Thoughts? Indeepwinter (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think ABV is the most common, so a very slight preference form me there. MOS:ABBR doesn't give much, apart from that it should be typed out the first time it is mentioned. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Category of Whisky

I've started a discussion about categories and status distilleries here. Ahwiv (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no references for the section on Legal definition

Someone removed the template noting there were no references with no explanation. Soranoch (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed that template, because it was incorrect. There are two references cited at the end of the first paragraph – in the source, they appear as "{{sfn|Scotch Whisky Regulations|2009}}{{sfn|Scotch Whisky Association|2009}}". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no references for the section "Legal definition". If I can't see them, then there are others that can't either. Please fix, and return the "unreferenced section" template until you do. Soranoch (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is strange that you can't see them. Do you see them in the source (as I quoted)? Are you using the new visual editor? Are you using an unusual browser? Do others see them or not? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

They're certainly there. Maybe Soranoch's browser has issues with named references? Either way, I removed the tag again, as the section is certainly definitively referenced, and the tag is factually incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Taste?

I know that it can be a challenge to describe flavors but I came to Scotch to see how it tasted different from other whiskies. I know that Rye whiskey page contrasts its flavor to that of Bourbon whiskey. Since Scotch is thought to be so distinctive, it would be nice to know why. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty difficult question to answer because it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Bourbon and rye are predominantly distilled from corn and rye, respectively, and that's why they're called bourbon and rye. Scotch whisky is so-called because of its origin and aging process, not because of the malts or grains used. Scotch whiskies are as different from each other as they are from bourbon or rye. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All single malt Scotch is made exclusively from barley, and the mash for all Scotch is legally required to contain barley, and non-single-malt Scotch is generally made in a way that attempts to taste somewhat like single malt Scotch. So a barley flavour is a distinctive characteristic. Most Scotch is also aged in used casks instead of in new casks (whereas Bourbon is always aged in new casks). That also gives it a different flavour. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I greatly appreciate you trying! I didn't get any response when I posted a similar question on the Bourbon article. I'm just trying to compare different types of whiskies. Newjerseyliz (talk)

I was surprised to find no mention of peat in the article: isn’t peat-smoke an important flavouring in at least some regions or varieties? There’s also only a brief mention of the barrels in which whisky is aged, again AIUI a major source of flavour according to the previous contents & so on. While I agree that taste itself is quite subjective, the production techniques intended to add (or remove) flavours could be discussed objectively—particularly those that distinguish Scotch whiskies from the other types. Moreover there could be mention of some of the chemical components known to affect the taste: see Whisky#Chemistry.—Odysseus1479 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand the term Scotch does not technically describe taste. Is it acceptable to document that although the flavor of scotches vary greatly, they have a reputation for peaty, smokey, savory and salty flavors? In my experience, that is among the first things people address when they introduce the beverage. It seems odd this article would omit something like that. Are references a problem? Mr.trippple (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

New Section?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section on taste. At least for the different aspects regarding it. The malt article does not give much information about this. I.e. generally the malting is dried in Ireland using natural gas and in Scotland with peat fire. Where the whisky is stored during maturation (on an island vs. inland). Bourbon, sherry, port etc. casks. All of these things affect the taste. 95.91.225.62 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Blended what?

This section need expansion and clarification. What types of grains? Where do they come from? What percentage of the whisky do they comprise compared to malted barley? etc. Words like "grain" and "corn" could be misleading as they mean different plant sources depending on how and where they are used; "maize" would be more specific if that were the case. My understanding is that maize likely comes from the US as they have large industrial volumes at lower cost. If so, it would be interesting to note that "scotch" actually has some "american" in it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, there's nothing that can be said categorically, other than bulk commodity grain, usually either wheat or corn (maize) is used to make grain whiskey. As for how much malt whisky vs grain whisky is in a blend, that's going to vary between any two blends, and may actually be a trade secret. Also, I think, if I'm parsing your words correctly, that your trying to focus on what percentage of the overall whiskey comes from a given grain, like a bourbon mashbill. That's not a valid calculation for a blended whiskey, of any national origin, as the grains aren't mashed together and are not necessarily the same from one batch to another. It's part if the nature of the light grain whiskey used as the basis of blends that the underlying grain doesn't really matter nearly as much, unlike a straight whiskey or single malt. So I don't know if anything can really be added to an overview article like this, or if that info is really relevant. oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Single malt refers to a supply of one strain of barley, and that is malted and kilned/smoked always in the same way. It is made by one company. Each single malt has its own distinctive taste, and the flavor may vary slightly from season to season. Blended types do not show this variability. I'm not aware of an Scotches that contain malted rye. It is way too overpowering.220.244.236.107 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe "single malt" does not necessarily refer to using a single strain of barley – only to production at a single distillery (by batch distillation in pot stills, using only water and malted barley). Producers of single malts can use any mixture of barley sources they choose, AFAIK. It is true that no Scotches contain malted rye – simply because that is illegal under the Scotch whisky regulations (SWR), if for no other reason. However, the primary reason the law is written that way is likely to be that the result would not taste like Scotch is expected to taste – not necessarily that it would not taste good. Part of the purpose of the SWR is to preserve the distinctive characteristics of products marketed as "Scotch whisky". There is at least one product marketed as a single malt rye whisky, but it is not a "Scotch", since it is produced outside of Scotland (and producing it in Scotland would violate the SWR, so it can't be produced there). I haven't tasted such a whisky, so I can't say whether it tastes good or not, but if it didn't taste reasonably good, they probably wouldn't be selling it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Need History of Blending

I would like to see more history about how Scotch started and eventually came to be what it is today, and when. For example, would it be correct to assume that originally all Scotch whisky was "single malt", and thus that blending came along later to help create different flavors, or help to standardize the flavor of a brand from batch to batch? This seems likely to the be reasoning behind the biggest-selling and best-known brands such as Johnny Walker, Chivas Regal, J&B, and the other blended whiskies that are known for their distinctive tastes.

Thus would it be reasonable to say that blending started around a certain time, and everything before was single malt? Just curious to know whether single-malt was always the more premium variety or if it was once simply the ONLY variety. Jefferson1957 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How many lowland distilleries?

The Lowland single malts lists six distilleries (4 producing and 2 per-producing.) This article lists 4 - which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.142.131 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Machine Translated Version (Japanese}

This is machine translated version of Japanese featured article on Scotch Whisky. We can use it. I will write some lines. --Human3015^TALK  03:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There's very little in there that isn't already better presented in this English article. That the Japanese version is a featured article on the Japanese Wikipedia is meaningless, as the standards are not the same from one language Wikipedia to the next. The Japanese version, for example, includes inappropriately prescriptive material about how to drink the whisky. That's something not allowed here. Some of the other material is actually in sub-articles here on the English Wikipedia, also. That is to say, we already have a vastly more expanded coverage than the Japanese article, but it's (appropriately, per WP:SUMMARY) spread out over multiple pages. In short, I removed the tag because I don't think there's much that would actually add to this article in the Japanese article. oknazevad (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on the lede and "legal" definitions of Scotch whisky

To quote the lede: "Scotch whisky, often simply called Scotch, is malt whisky or grain whisky made in Scotland. Scotch whisky must be made in a manner specified by law.[1]" The laws and regulations (most notably to be made only in Scotland) pertain I think (?) only to certain trade agreement areas, e.g. the EU. In contrast, for example, the article on Bourbon whiskey identifies it in the lede as a type of American whiskey but does not say "made in US" for rather good factual reasons. In subsections the Bourbon article goes into the regulatory legal details such as NAFTA participants recognizing it can't be called Bourbon unless made in the US. The Scotch whisky article would be better served in my opinion by taking this approach. I.e. the lede recognizing the style or origin of the type as Scottish...and then later informing me and the readers as to the regulatory details of how and where brewed to be recognized as Scotch by whom.Juan Riley (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. While some additional material about the protection of its designated origin would be helpful, the definitions of how scotch whisky is made are directly dependent on the legal requirements. In other words, stopping a knock off from outside Scotland from calling itself scotch is separate from the legal requirements of production. the reference in the lead is to the latter, not the former. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The point is Scotch is Scotch, just like Irish is Irish, Bourbon is Bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey is Tennessee Whiskey, a Canadian Rye is a Canadian Rye, akpeteshie is akpeteshie, etc.... They are styles of whiskey which should of course be associated/identified in their lede with their accepted geographic origins. But referencing a UK law (which may or may not apply to say Timbuktu) in the lede in order to say that it must be made in Scotland is regulatory definition appropriately treated in a later section. Believe me I can tell a scotch style whisky (intentional small s) from all the others above--but I would not bet 100:1 that it was malted and distilled according to some border. That should be the main point and start of the article: saying what a Scotch whisky is...not what some law says it is not. As written the lede sounds very defensive rather than being about the tasty liquor it is. Juan Riley (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Scotch whisky is whisky made in Scotland. If it's not made in Scotland, it's not Scotch. That's the point. It may be similar in style, but it's not actual Scotch, just an imitation. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with Oknazevad. Moreover, in the case of Scotch whisky, the legal requirements seem roughly inseparable from the country of origin. I think it would be incorrect for the lede to say that Scotch is a particular style of whisky without saying that it must be made in Scotland. This is because even if you make a whisky in the same manner that one would make a Scotch whisky in Scotland, but you make it somewhere else, it would not meet the well-accepted definition of "Scotch whisky". It is simply considered improper to refer to something as "Scotch whisky" unless it was made in Scotland. I doubt that any really knowledgeable source would say otherwise. It would be OK to refer to something as following the Scotch whisky style of production, but it's not OK to call it "Scotch whisky" if it wasn't made in Scotland. In regard to the comparison with Bourbon whiskey, note that the article on that topic does say Bourbon is a type of American whisky, so if it's not made in America, it's not properly called "Bourbon whiskey". There is, however, some difference in the law of America about Bourbon and the law of Scotland about Scotch whisky. In America, the law allows people to make Bourbon whiskey and also allows them to make other kinds of whiskey, such as rye whiskey or malt whiskey or wheat whisky or non-aged corn whiskey or mixed-grain whiskey with any mash bill one chooses – the law establishes proper labeling requirements as a matter of "truth in advertising", but it basically does not try to limit what styles of whiskey are allowed to be produced. In Scotland, the law is much more restrictive. It only allows people to make a few basic styles of whisky – 100% barley malt whisky produced in a pot still, or grain whisky that includes some malted barley, or some mixture within or across those two categories. This is more than "truth in advertising"; it is a limitation that makes the style roughly synonymous with the country of origin. It would be redundant to say that Scotch whisky is whisky made in Scotland that fits into one of those methods of production, since those methods of production are the only methods allowed in Scotland. All whisky made in Scotland is Scotch whisky, and it's not allowed to be made in Scotland unless it is made in a particular way. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for poking holes into your narrow world view of whiskies. Oddly this view is found typically only in Scotch drinkers. Why not rewrite some of the other whiskey articles to conform to UK law? Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm mostly a bourbon drinker. But BarrelProof breaks it down very well. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One final suggestion: find a reference for your lede (or eliminate the ref) that isn't a UK law. Juan Riley (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with oknazevad.

An article on Scotch whisky (made in Scotland, minimum age) is an interesting topic and the obvious subject here. An article on "Scotty whiskey drink" (I had a Korean bottle under much that name years ago - tasted disgusting, but it did work as a dye laser) is a different article. Probably also notable, but quite a different topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Andy Dingley:Laughing. I actually tried (won't say how many decades ago) Jack with either Rhodamine or a Nile Blue mix (cannot recall). No, it did not lase. You might say such a waste however I was trying to conserve the called for amount from a bottle of pure ethanol (and yes it did have a tax stamp). The pint bottle of Jack returned to the shelf only to be used for sipping while machining to get that oily taste out of my mouth--tho the ethanol worked better. Juan Riley (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Value of the whisky business?

This page seems to need a section (or a See Also reference) on the total value of whisky production and whisky exports. They obviously make an important contribution to the Scottish (and UK) economy.Campolongo (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Whisky vs. Whiskey

I thought (presumably by international trade agreement) that only whisky made in Scotland could be labeled as whisky, and that whiskeys bottled anywhere else (particularly in Ireland) had to be spelled as whiskey, so that there would be no confusion between the two. Is this not the case?209.179.40.208 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not the case. For example, both spellings are used in the U.S. (although 'whiskey' is more common there) – e.g., although most U.S. brands use 'whiskey' on their labels, George Dickel, Maker's Mark and Old Forester use 'whisky' on their labels, and the U.S. law defining whisky-making rules uses 'whisky' predominantly and says that 'whisky' and 'whiskey' legally mean the same thing. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(Early Times too) oknazevad (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus Canadian whisky is universally spelled without an 'e'. Really, overblown urban legend type stuff here. oknazevad (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus Indian, Japanese, Chinese, German, Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, South African and Dutch whiskies use spelling 'whisky'. LongDrink (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it is only Irish whiskey which is universally (or close to universally, at least) spelt with an 'e'. Allegedly to distinguish it from 'Irish whisky', lower quality whisky marketed as Irish despite not being distilled in Ireland. Whether or not that is true is another matter entirely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.233.97 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK the "Whisky" spelling is only allowed to be used for Scotch whisky whereas "Whiskey" usually denotes American or Irish-produced liquor, such as Bourbon. IIRC, if the liquor is not produced in Scotland then it is illegal under UK Trading Standards to call it "Whisky" in the UK - it has to be labelled "Whiskey" with an "e". So not an "urban legend", at least not here in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be noteworthy if it is true, but I really doubt that it is true. Can you provide a reference to the legal restriction about spelling that you say exists? I believe I've read most of the regulations that govern Scotch and Irish production and labelling, and I don't recall seeing it. I also recall reading an article by the whiskey writer Charles Cowdery about that issue, and it did not say there was any such regulation. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just took another quick look at some regulatory language. I see some regulations for what can be called "Scotch whisky" and what can be called "Irish whiskey" (references found in the respective articles). I also see that "whisky" and "whiskey" are defined to be synonymous (reference here). I don't see any explicit language prohibiting the spellings "Scotch whiskey" or "Irish whisky". However, I also don't see any explicit language saying that those spellings are allowed to be used for products. The regulations seem to be sort of silent on that question. There is probably no one that wants to label products that way, so the question may be untested. My personal interpretation is that since "whisky" and "whiskey" are defined to be synonymous, there is no actual prohibition against using those terms interchangeably (with or without adding the "Irish" or "Scotch" prefix). (Similarly, the U.S. regulation says that "whisky" and "whiskey" are synonymous, and then proceeds to use "whisky" to define all the derived terms, including "Irish whisky", although that spelling is probably not found on any products and is obviously not intended to be mandatory.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's urban legend nonsense crossbred with marketing/advertising bullshit, no different than the perenial silliness about "Irish names are spelled with an 'Mc' and Scottish ones with "Mac.'" In actual fact, whisky/whiskey are the same word, the anglicized Gaelic "uisge bheatha" common to both Irish and Scots Gaelic, just as M'/Mc/Mac are simply anglicized Gaelic "Mac." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

For anyone still interested in this topic, there is also an extended discussion on this over at the whisky article, which also includes in the very first line the OED definition. It seems odd that there is no authoritatively definitive word on this subject. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

History of illegal stills in Highlands

This article seems to gloss over the illegal stills in the Highlands in the period 1760-1840. I have added a citation needed template to the text that suggests that there were only 400 unlicensed distilleries in this period. The story of the illegal production of whisky in the Highlands is given in Clanship to Crofters' War, by T M Devine (chapter 9). It makes clear some key facts:

In 1782 over a thousand unlicensed stills were seized in the Highland region. This implies that the overall number in operation was significantly higher. A major licensed distiller of the time, John Stein of Kilbagie, maintained that half the whisky consumed in Scotland was made in unlicensed stills.
The importance of this illegal production to the Highland economy. The alteration of the tax regime in the 1820s, reducing the advantage of untaxed production, was a minor but significant factor which damaged the Highland economy at a time when other industries in the region were suffering.
The better quality of the untaxed product. This was because the tax, for some time, was on malt - therefore the illicit stills could use malt whilst the legal distilleries used a lot of grain to keep costs down. The quality of the taxed product did not start to rise until the tax regime was amended.
The tolerance of Highland magistrates to the unlicensed stills caused a lot of discontent among Scotland's lawmakers. The magistrates came from the landowning classes, whose rental income was supported by the profits made by those of their tenants involved in making whisky. The attitude of these magistrates was eventually tackled by legislation forcing them to impose significant punishments for those who were caught. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Mis-capitalization of scotch whisky in article

@Oknazevad: This is a grammar issue and a common mistake, especially on Wikipedia. This usage of the word scotch is not capitalized in scotch whisky, as in this usage it is not a national demonym, it is being used as a common noun. People tend to write the way they think, and sometimes, when they think something is important or noteworthy, they capitalize it. Advertisers do this constantly. That is why I question the origins and possible COI of the original writer of this article. This rule holds true for other such items, such as french fries, swiss cheese, manila envelopes, venetian blinds, roman numerals, pasteurize, italicize, bohemian, etc. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.

I respectfully, and grammatically, request you to please self revert your removal of my changes. ;-) Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

No. per the CMOS website:

A. According to CMOS, 16th ed., 8.60, Personal, national, or geographical names, and words derived from such names, are often lowercased when used with a nonliteral meaning. For example, the cheese known as “gruyère” takes its name from a district in Switzerland but is not necessarily from there; “swiss cheese” (lowercase s) is a cheese that resembles Swiss emmentaler (which derives its name from the Emme River valley).

This was a common error in years past, treating it like "swiss cheese", but Scotch whisky can only be made in Scotland; it is literally whisky from Scotland, not just a style, and should be capitalized. That the correct use has now taken hold really doesn't justify the false accusations of COI in you edit summary, either. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @GenQuest: In this case, we refer to common use by prominent writers and experts in the field and what's used in the preponderance of reliable sources on Scotch whisky. Any general style guide (like the Chicago Manual) would advise you that general advice is sometimes trumped by specialist cases. Take MacLean's Whiskypedia, for example, one of the authoritative sources on the subject—it is written as "Scotch whisky" throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I note that the Times capitalise "Scotch" when referring to the drink. I would characterise this newspaper as a non-specialist (with respect to whisky) but authoritative writer. So it is not just experts on whisky that use this form.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of the USA as a market

I notice you deleted a sentence about that; yes, the article is about a Scottish product but the US is the single larger exporter.

...Scotch whisky industry, as the U.S. is its largest market. Overall Scotch whisky exports to the US last year were worth $1.3bn, accounting for over a fifth of total global exports by value. The U.S. single malt market itself is worth $463 million dollars, over a third of the entire global market for Scotch single malt. https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/10/03/trump-administration-slaps-25-tariff-on-single-malt-scotch-whisky-imports/#6aacf336207f

The US market accounted for 22% of global value and 10.7% of global volumes of Scotch whisky exports. Of 137 million bottles of Scotch exported to the US in 2018, just under 25 million were single malts. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-50054964 Peter K Burian (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence (removed by this edit) seemed a bit out of context. I believe none of the things you said above are stated in the article, and it would be desirable to add them somewhere (with proper context), as well as some statistics about other markets. I also found that sentence somewhat vague and dubious. It said that "Single malt Scotch whisky is today, the most popular choice in North American homes." But consider that 90% of the Scotch whisky market is blends (per the article, citing this source), and that Johnnie Walker is the top-selling brand, and it is a brand of blends – not single malts. Could it really be true that most of the Scotch whisky sold in the U.S. is single malts? Also, the sentence didn't establish a clear frame of reference – is it talking about what is most popular among Scotch whiskies or among all whiskies or among all beverages or something else? And what is the measure of popularity? Is it, for example, measured by survey responses or market size in dollars or volume of product in litres? Also, please note that 25 million out of 137 million is 18% – in other words, it is not a majority. Also, is the U.S. the biggest market or is the biggest export market? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Marketing sources

I notice that several references have been added that refer to www.visitscotland.com, which is a promotional site published by the national tourist board, and www.thescotchadvocate.com, which is a promotional site that contains relatively little information and is published by an agency called the Napier Marketing Group (see also www.napiermkt.com). These do not seem ideal, as Wikipedia is intended to rely on independent reliable sources. The site www.whiskiesofscotland.com, which is some defunct blog with a now-abandoned domain name, also does not seem very reliable. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... BarrelProof, I cannot agree re: Visit Scotland. When they publish technical material on whisky, they are providing fact, not trying to boost tourism. www.thescotchadvocate.com/ seemed OK to me in terms of the great deal of factual info they provided. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to assume that some other editor used this as a source: www.whiskiesofscotland.com ... As you say, it is no longer active, so I could not have used it, since I started edits on this article only a few weeks ago. Agree it should not be used. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I agree that VisitScotland may be suitable for non-controversial factual information, although I might prefer using some other source that does not have a promotional purpose. At least it is not a personal blog, and one would expect them to report basic facts correctly. But ultimately, VisitScotland exists for promotion of tourism, including the promotion of whisky tourism. The first thing I noticed about "The Scotch Advocate" is that they use the American spelling of the word "flavour", which seems a bit strange. A closer look at the site reveals that it is produced by a marketing promotion company that is based in the United States, and also that there is relatively little content on that site. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall, we are both trying to improve this article, whether we agree on everything or not. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Of that, I am grateful. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)