Quote Originally Posted by Draelore View Post
. . . In defense of non-single malt whisky, . . . I want a good reliable Scotch Whisky that does not challenge me to try to find each of the subtle flavors, but rather is just a good solid Scotch.

Andy
That's pretty much my position. I admit to being spoiled; I grew up on the Scotch I stole from my father. It had been distilled in the 1920's and 1930's when the distillers were still using a great deal of peat as fuel, and its flavor revealed that (see the "making Scotch" sequence in Mr. Roberts). Once I had adapted to that flavor, nothing less could satisfy me. This fact created a problem for me.

When my father died, not only was my supply of free Scotch cut off but I was unable to be satisfied with any Scotch I could afford to pay for, and I did not like any American beer I had tried. Deliverance from this situation came slowly. A tour of duty in Germany in the 1950's taught me what a real lager is, and on return stateside I eventually found a reasonable semblance in Hamm's and in Coor's. My father had also been fond of martinis, but I could not stomach them; juniper berries are toxic to me, and the mere idea of involuntary sobriety is apalling.

Eventually I found an acceptable inexpensive vodka (I presently use Burnett's) but the single-malt Scotch I have tried has always disappointed. Apparently no contemporary distiller can afford to use as much peat as was commonly used 70 or 80 years ago. So now I drink blends instead of single malts. Not only are their prices more acceptable ($10-15/75cl) but so are their flavors, because my expectations are different.

To each his own.


.