/ck/ - Food & Cooking

I don't like malt because it tastes of rot. Why would you go for it over single grain or bourbon? what's the big appeal? the fruitiness or something?
I mean, peated stuff is nice and all but it's still thin compared to bourbon. Of course yeah you guys have the taste from the stuff the barrel was used for and all, but you don't get them deep wood notes or barrel and rye spice or wheat niceness do you?
Well since your stuff is so thin I guess the used barrel thing IS noticeable but aging vodka in those barrels would yield to comparable results.

And yeah, the more aged stuff does get the rough edges burred off and it all fits together nice and fine but it just tastes diluted compared to bourbon. Yeah yeah preferences and all that but you can't deny scotch, irish and jap stuff is thinner; you might be into that but that doesn't give it more oomph.
Doesn't help that the vast majority of the stuff is 40%. Got some teeling stuff (not a full bottle, some 5cl flasks to try out their stuff) and while it's at 46% it's still kinda thin, not aged enough I guess.

So yeah, what's the big appeal o thef scotch/jap/irish stuff? is it the lightness, the fruit notes, the malted flavour? Because as far as bang for the buck goes, it's not very competitive, anything below 14~16 years old is too young to really be appreciated.
And drinking it on the rocks thinks it so much only the nasty maltness stays, no idea how to enjoy that one.
Enlighten me.

>>13145624
I have no idea what you mean by "tastes of rot." That's not how I would describe malt at all. Rich, sweet, nutty. The fruitiness comes from the distillation, you will get fruity notes from other grains.
Barley is a single grain and I'm not trying to claim that barley is strictly the best grain. Only that I don't like too much wheat, and corn is kind of mediocre.
As for the barrel, I'd have to say that's a big loss for bourbon. There's plenty of complexity to be had from a long, cool ageing process, but bourbon gets tannic well before then. Bourbon dominates in the cheaper end of the market; more barrel notes faster, but it doesn't benefit from more time. Also where are the finishes?

There is no difference in thinness between bourbon and scotch.

Teeling is dogshit trash. 40% is absolutely not the way. And there are plenty of cask strength scotches.

What you want is something rich, a good intensity of flavour, complex and with a long finish. Beyond that it is a balancing act. Japanese stuff does tend to go for a lighter flavour (not rich) but very well balanced.

Value is 100% market dependant. Only looking at the Bourbon I can get here at its full USA proof;
Bulleit Rye costs the same as any 12 year old Speyside which will crush it in complexity and balance.
Eagle Rare 10 / Blanton's Private costs as much as the Islay whiskeys and some of the cheaper 15 year old Speysides and they're less intense, less complex, shorter finished and less well balanced.
Anything more expensive than that I've gotten duty free but at that point it's same old bourbon against premium scotch. Literally the last trip through the airport resulted in Angel's Envy against Connemara cask strength, Glenfiddich 15 cask strength, Glenlivet 18. Angel's Envy is nice, but not that nice.

>>13145763
I see, lots of interesting points.
By "taste of rot" I mean literally that. Half rotten fruits.

Also I wouldn't say that bourbons get too tannic to be good and that it doesn't benefit from aging. Sure the sweet spot is at around 8~12 years. And the higher proof masks imperfections you'd otherwise perceive and give it a bit more depth, so even cheap stuff like WT101 is agreeable to sip on.

And taking Bulleit rye as an example is a bit dishonest since rye is not really worth its price imo.
I'd also like to disagree with ER10 being less complex. Yeah it comes across as thin but the flavours are deep; I haven't had anywhere near as strong of a berry flavour with any other whiskey. Yeah, you do get some nice fruity notes with peated whisky if you dig a bit but a hint of strawberry is lackluster and hardly a qualifier for deepness.

Yeah, finished stuff like Angel's Envy are quite niche, so niche I can't even get my hands on a bottle of the stuff in fact.

Still, for one bottle of Glenfiddich 15 cask strength I can get two four roses SiB or a MM cask strength, so I'd rather get something I know I'll like. Isn't there something rich, deep and intense at a lower price point that you'd recommend?
As for teeling, yeah it's less than perfect, but I think I'm getting to like their single malt for some reason, which is a first for me.
Wholly agree on the jap stuff it's nice and balanced, but way too shallow.

>>13145763
>I have no idea what you mean by "tastes of rot."
When I started getting into whisky scotch specifically had a distinct taste of over ripe fruit, which is probably what he is getting.

>>13144841
>picked up pic related
>love the sherry
>I just don't quite think it's worth it compared to other sherried variants
>pic is of a port cask finish with no sherry casks involved

>>13145624
>but it just tastes diluted compared to bourbon
Try some huge, flavorful, intense cask strength scotches like Ardbeg Corryvreckan and Aberlour A'bunadh. You won't make this statement again after doing so.

>>13144841
If you want sherry, there really isnt anything that compares to Glendronach 12 for the price.

>>13144841
If you want sherry, there really isnt anything that compares to Glenfarclas 12 for the price.

>>13144841
>As always Glenmorangie reminds me that 'smooth' is not a positive characteristic.
Glenmorangie was one of my favorites when I started getting into Scotch. Particularly the Quinta Ruban. But as I started getting into smokier and peatier Scotches, I started to agree with your statement. Smooth Scotches are easy to drink but boring. Not worth the $.

>>13146694
>>13146701
These are both very good but they are very different.
Glenfarclas 12 has a real nice balance going on of sweetness, a floral quality and just a wee hint of peat funk which is just enough to keep it super interesting.
Glendronach 12 is less sweet; it's meatier and more savory and rich.
Some sherried scotches lean towards the sweet side and some lean towards the meaty side, and these are two great examples of those two, polar opposite styles of sherried scotches.

>>13146724
>Smooth Scotches are easy to drink but boring.
Smooth isn't always boring/flavorless.
Something like Monkey Shoulder, or a typical Jap whisky, or a typical Speyside like Glenfiddich/Glenlivet... yeah, these are the boring/flavorless type of scotch.
Sometimes you come across something like >>13146701 which is simultaneously smooth and light yet still super flavorful, though.

>>13146701
I prefer the 15 year over the 12, just seems like overall a much better version of the 12. Only problem I have with Glenfarclas is similar to Glenmorangie where sometimes the bottles will be amazing, next one you have taste sulfur infused and is really unpleasant.

>>13146898
I've bought a lot of bottles of Macallan Sherry Oak, Glenfarclas and Glendronach. I've had sulfured Macallans and sulfured Glendronaches but never a sulfured Glenfarclas.
Ralfy reports a very low sulfured bottle rate with Glenfarclas as well, and says they hand select their casks to prevent the sulfur thing.
The sulfur thing is a risk with any scotch that has touched a sherry cask, as well as other some other types of casks which may have been sterilized with sulfur candles like sauternes.

>>13147031
>The sulfur thing is a risk with any scotch that has touched a sherry cask
Also, having a bottle of Laphroaig 10 on hand helps greatly mitigate the Russian Roulette game you play when you buy sherried scotches. A sulfured sherried scotch can be salvaged by mixing it with Laphroaig, which is pretty affordable and has a very strong peat flavor which completely masks any suflur. Peated, sherried scotches are delicious (see: Lagavulin, Uigeadail, Highland Park), so mixing Laphroaig with sherried scotches is like mixing Forrest and Jenny.

>>13145624
>tastes of got
?
Anyway, the reason why I dislike bourbon is that I don't like vanilla enough to drink it regularly.

>>13147361
rot*
put on autocorrect on my phone, don't know how they can be programmed to be so retardedly zealous in changing one real word for another but missing out changing obvious typos in other instances

>>13145624
Scotch has a wider spectrum of flavors that I care for that bourbon doesn't. Bourbon is too one note for me, overly sweet and the corn is off putting. I also dont find scotch as thin as you say it is. Only use I have for bourbon is to make cocktails. I'd rather sip on scotch 100% of the time.

>>13146694
I bought a bottle of the 18 and it instantly became my favorite whisky. It's phenomenal.

For me, it's Talisker 10.

>>13145999
>Half rotten fruits.
Ahhh, gotcha. I do like that. It's more of a wine thing than a scotch, but there's some there.

I do mean they get tannic after that sweet spot.

I went with Bulleit Rye because literally anything recommended near that price point is sold at a lower proof here. Makers mark, regular Bulleit, Buffalo Trace are all 40%.

I checked the prices of MM vs Glenfiddich cask strengths. The Glenfiddich is 25% cheaper. Wholly different markets.

As for cheaper recommendations I can't say I've had that much luck sub $55USD. And it will almost always have the rotten fruit flavour you don't like added in through a sherry finish if it weren't there in the first place. Islay? Ardbeg 10 or Lagavulin 16. Talisker dark storm, assuming you can get it. I'm truly guessing at what cheaper means though.

>>13146635
my bad man.

>>13146648
>Aberlour A'bunadh
I have a bottle here. I absolutely agree, it can be a real kick in the face in the best possible way.

>>13146694
>>13146701
These two are shockingly overpriced. $100 and $115 AUD respectively. Nobody else except Macallan has 12 year olds that expensive. I have heard great things though.

>>13147765
>These two are shockingly overpriced. $100 and $115 AUD respectively.
Both are around $45 USD.

>>13147765
>>13147882
Oh, and Macallan 12 is typically $60 USD. The Glenfarclas and Glendronach 12 year olds are generally considered good value sherried scotches in comparison to the Macallan 12 for this reason.

>>13147765
That's not that much tbqh. The excise escalator means that low end is now around 40 AUD

>>13148042
Glengrant / glenmorangie / glenfiddich / glen moray / glenlivit / glengoyne / glen anything come in cheaper. 60-70 AUD each.
I am willing to spend more on occasion, but what reason is there to believe glenfarcles or glendronach will be significantly better? I can buy 15-18 year olds at those prices.
Whiskey is an expensive hobby to start with. I can't afford to be dropping money on bottles well above the market rate without trying them first. And what's on tasting depends on luck unless I want to go out of my way to a crazy expensive pub because that's what it takes to find a selection better than my own. Even then you're paying for 1/3 to 1/4 of the bottle per drink which is not worth it to me because I drink with 4+ people that will contribute to the cost of a bottle (or rather they will also buy something).

>>13148318
>I can buy 15-18 year olds at those prices.
15-18 years old means jack shit if the base spirit is bland, boring trash. I'll take a 10 year old Glenfarclas or Glendronach over an 18 years old Glenlivet or Glenfiddich.

Reminder that if you don't like smoky scotch, you don't like scotch. If you want fruity and sweet shit, drink a daiquiri.

Trying Johnnie Walker Double Black for the first time because it was cheap. I can taste a hint of smokiness, but overall It tastes thin and watered down. Blended whiskey is just sad.

>>13149141
The green label is fairly interesting. I agree with your evaluation of the double black.

>>13149133
I love smoky scotch.

>>13149146
Yeah it is by no means terrible, but you can absolutely tell it's a blend. I'll try the Green Label eventually, because I heard from lots that is the best of JW, even better than Blue.

>>13149128
Have you ever had an 18 year old Glenlivet or Glenfiddich? they're phenomenal.
And the ages do mean something. Glen Moray is perhaps the worst Speyside. Like Pepsi, it's priced as such. Their 15 year old is price competitively with everyone else's younger product and it shits on them.

>>13149133
Don't worry we love smokey scotch. And smokey fruity scotch.

>>13149146
I think the opposite. Double black is more expensive than the other blends, but cheaper than a single malt. There's a place for it in the market and it is a good introduction to peat since it otherwise tends to be so expensive. Green on the other hand costs as much as an aged single malt, yet lacks any level of intensity. Caol Ila, Cragganmore, Talisker are all great. Caol Ila isn't very complex and Cragganmore isn't very intense, but how shit must Linkwood be to turn older variants of 3 great whiskeys into what is Jonnie Green.

>>13149203
>Talisker
>great
Opinion discarded.

>tfw I'm moving to a city in 2 months and they have a whiskey bar with hundreds from around the world

If I sample 2 or 3 a week, I will have tried every major mainstream whiskey by the summer. So I don't have to waste money buying full bottles.

>>13149211
Is that your retort to my argument that green label is bad? Talisker is in green label. I wasn't just listing random whiskeys I enjoy, those are the ingredients to the green label blend.

>>13149211
this

Recommend me a scotch that when I drink it, it tastes like I'm going for a brisk walk on an autumn day through the forest, and can smell the leaves and the trees.

>>13144841
The Macallan 12 is a pretty solid sherried scotch.

>>13150475
Macallan 12 Sherry I can't say is bad, but it's just not really interesting.

>>13149211

I drank an entire bottle of pic related over a 12 hour gaming session 2 weeks ago. No regrets.
>>13146694
Flavour is good, but it goes down way too rough for the price point

>>13151038
This is great, I've meant to get a bottle but my shelf is full at the moment. Ever have any of the Black Art ones?

Not sure what the deal is with Glendronach pricing, it's around the same prices as other 12 year scotches with exceptions for Macallan but have read here that it gets really damn high. I guess I've lucked out. I wouldn't say the finish is rough but I can't say it's smooth and relaxing either, I haven't had it in about a month so need to pick up another bottle again

>>13151038
I'm sure it's a great whisky, but I can't get over how crappy that bottle looks.

Looks like the sort of stuff they make you drink 12 hours prior to a CT scan or something.

>>13145624
>peated tastes thin
I've got a bottle of bruichladdich octomore 8.1 here that would disagree