Dilution of whisky – the molecular perspective (2017)
nature.com
nature.com
Might be true for the vast majority of whisky, but once you start to hit enthusiast territory, there's whisky from 40% to above 60% ABV. Some of those (including but not limited to "cask strength" bottlings) are certainly made for diluting further. Or rather, to give the customer the option to dilute to taste.
> Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water, which changes the taste significantly. Whisky enthusiasts often also add a few drops of water to the spirit before drinking in order to further enhance the taste.
I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.
40% is still a thing in my group, but it’s rare that water gets added, that’s only done with higher strengths.
That's kind of my point too, I failed to express it well enough. The paper author asserts that 40% whiskies are diluted by enthusiast, and that statement can be challenged in multiple ways! Either by not going for 40% whiskies, or by going for them and not diluting them.
> Might be true for the vast majority of whisky, but once you start to hit enthusiast territory, there's whisky from 40% to above 60% ABV.
I'd say the statement is mostly true depending on how you read "diluted".
Whiskey is distilled and casked at a high % abv (e.g. 60-70) and then diluted before drinking to something less than that, e.g. 45%, 40% or lower. That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both. But (hopefully) very few people make the mistake of drinking 70% alcohol without diluting it first. That the dilution was left to the consumer rather than happens in the factory is just a detail. It doesn't really change how whisky is distilled (70%) and later consumed (~40% or something higher but still hopefully not 70...).
The paper states "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water", which is clearly not always true, certainly not in nerdy circles.
> Whiskey is distilled and casked at a high % abv (e.g. 60-70) and then diluted before drinking to something less than that, e.g. 45%, 40% or lower. That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both. But (hopefully) very few people make the mistake of drinking 70% alcohol without diluting it first. That the dilution was left to the consumer rather than happens in the factory is just a detail. It doesn't really change how whisky is distilled (70%) and later consumed (~40% or something higher but still hopefully not 70...).
I'd say that most enthusiast do not dilute most of their cask strength whisky down to anywhere near 40% ABV if they can help it. My argument is that the paper 's generalization is _very_ broad.
Ah, yes with that qualification then it's certainly not true. Cask strength isn't even that rare any more.
> I'd say that most enthusiast do not dilute most of their cask strength whisky down to anywhere near 40% ABV if they can help it.
I have heard of people who add a drop of water to a 70% whisky but I can't say I understand why. Perhaps it's individual but I just find I get a numb feeling in my mouth with anything 60% or above, which simply feels like it lessens the flavors.
I've had one whisky that was bottled at close to 70%, and it's certainly an "evaporating" feeling. For me it's situational, sometimes a 55% whisky goes down smoothly, sometimes a 46% one is harsh. The longer the tastings become, the harder it becomes for a (relatively) low ABV% whisky to compete with bold, 55%+ ones. Tasting order and length, mood, food, so many variables.
Go into pretty much any supermarket (certainly in the UK) and 40% ABV is universal strength. But you're right, in enthusiast groups 46% ABV is the norm, however you're in a minority of whisky drinkers.
The bulk of Scotch whisky production, both single malt and blended, is aimed at filling supermarket shelves because that's where the highest volumes of sales and profit come from. These products are not aimed at enthusiasts.
I'd recommend this fella if you fancy listening to a decent rant or two about the state of the Scotch whisky industry:
Yes. The paper, however, implies that even enthusiasts dilute their whisky further below 40% ABV. For a nerdy article, that's missing most of the "enthusiast" market segment.
At times it's quite painful to watch him glassy-eyed, half-drunk, sorta slurring and struggling for words. If you've spent any length of time in Scottish pubs you'll have met guys like Ralfy and they're tbh quite annoying :D
I'll address your price of whisky comment in reverse:
> then another that supermarkets are lowballing the price and ruining its prestige.
From my interpretation, he's arguing that product dumped into the supermarkets, duty free etc is generic and unexciting (even if it is consistent). It's cheapo Scotch produced on an industrial scale that's heavily processed, and he's mostly right about that. Because this stuff is "cheap" it detracts from the attention that better whiskies should maybe get.
> He'll argue about the price of whisky being too high one day
I think he's talking about a couple of things here. One is industrial scale producers passing off certain whiskies as if they're smaller batch and playing to the myth and mystery of Scotch to the less well informed and charging a premium for what is just a higher strength version of their supermarket lines. We've seen this happen with the craft beer scene along with deceptive marketing.
Secondly a good chunk of decent whisky ends up in collections for investment purposes and pushes up the price of what is available to purchase and be able to actually drink.
Restated, the argument over price makes more sense. Perhaps he elaborates on the point over more videos (only watched 50 or so) so maybe I just caught small snippets of the point .
But he's an acquired taste for sure :)
Some brands of non-rye whiskey are, of course, contract-distilled just like most of the rye whiskey. I don't know whether Bulleit Bourbon is contract-distilled or made in-house. I do know it makes a pretty fine Manhattan. I would be surprised if Bulleit Rye is made in house.
In Scotland it's not uncommon to see "independent" bottlers. These are specialist companies that will take spirit from mainstream distilleries and then mature the whisky in their own casks. After maturation these independent bottlers will bottle under their own branding and possibly choose more traditional post processing. e.g. choosing not to add caramel colouring (E150A) or choosing not to use chilled filtration. You often end up with a much different product than that of the distillery you sourced your raw spirit from.
Maybe this is what Bulleit are doing?
> I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.
"rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.
> "rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.
I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.
But my point is that whisky that is bottled at significantly higher proofs (remember the article says "about 40%" (emphasis mine) thus acknowledging there is already room for variation) are sold as "cask strength". This is a point you also make yourself. Thus the article is correct in the general sense.
> I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.
Which still contains the term "rare" which is a gross exaggeration of the actual market (and which was the point I was making and stand by).
I'm a massive whisky enthusiast too but I think you're analysis here is, at best, unfair. At worst you simply come off as if you're trying to flex some kind of intellectual superiority by arguing pedantic nitpicks. Sure the study is written to cover the lowest common denominator of whiskies but the key here is that it's still the common denominator and what you're arguing are lesser common edge cases. The study doesn't claim that edge cases doesn't exist even if it's only interested in the most common cases.
Yes, it jarred for me too.
"Many whiskies, especially those that are made on the Scottish island of Isley, have a typical smoky taste that develops when malted barley is smoked on peat fire."
The smoke comes from the drying step in the malting process, which was/is traditionally done by burning peat. "Malted barley is smoked" sounds weird and incorrect. Nitpicking, sure, but can be spotted by anyone familiar with the process.
To me, the point of being able to share my creations would open it up to being discovered. Not to mention, it's pretty obvious that your not making fuel when aging in casks. I really don't feel like opening myself up to felony charges for making a few gallons. I also don't feel like creating a separate property (cannot distill spirits on a residential property) and a $10k bond (minimum allowed amount) to distill for personal use.
All of the major beer microbreweries that got started in the 90s were started by people who were illegally homebrewing before homebrew laws were reformed in the late 70s. With something like marijuana, you have to first acquire supply from someone who has a very small chance of being a cop or police informant, yet I still know tons of people who smoke weed and have been doing so for years with essentially 0 fear of getting caught because they aren't running around, doing it in public. If people got caught for even 1% of the speeding we all do on the highway, we all would have lost our licenses years ago, and that's a violation that is being commited in public!
But with a still, you can get everything you need on Amazon and nobody is checking up on it.
Most people get caught because of some other issue. It could be that you needed a home repair, had guests over, etc and someone saw something and reported it. It could be that you're investigated for some other issue. It could be that someone posts something online or in a text and you're later investigated for something else.
Yes, there's a very small chance of getting caught doing a number of things if you do it right. Even the overall murder solve rate (which includes non-prosecutions for weak cases or lacking evidence) is only about 70% in the US, and I imagine that many of the ones caught don't do it "right". But it's the value proposition that matters. Is it worth making a couple of gallons of alcohol that I could legally purchase for a few hundred dollars or less when there's a small chance of me going to prison for years and owing tens of thousands in fines and fees? Remember, we don't have a justice system, but merely a legal system. They would not hesitate to ruin my life and my family over a few gallons of illegally produced liquor, as they've done it to others.
Personally I've never understood diluting whisky in the glass (I usually drink peaty/smoky single malts) even 25/75 water/whisky mix seems to eliminate most of the 'whiskyness' and tastes like a 75/25.
Maybe I should try 5-10% dilution
My experience doesn't agree with what you posited. I know more people who add water and/or ice to their whisky here than don't.
Some years ago I spoke with the master brewer of the Glenfiddich distillery in an event in London.
Knowing that there was some controversy around adding ice and/or water to whisky (there are all sorts of arguments around that - I even heard one stating that the ice breaks down the whisky molecules, which made me laugh a little) I asked him about it. Who better to ask after all?
He smiled and said that it's perfectly fine to add ice, that he does it all the time, and of course it doesn't do anything harmful to the whisky.
Same goes with water. "In fact," he said, "adding water is a good thing as it brings out the flavour. I do it every time."
Drinking whisky straight anaesthetises your tongue/tastebuds/mouth, you'll not taste the flavour. I've had superior whisky drinking experiences with adding water and/or ice.
Drinking water alongside whisky, or adding a few drops to whisky was very commonly seen, both in bars, and at home. As you'd expect there are often wee taps on the bar for that purpose, or small jugs of water served alongside.
My comment was really relating to adding ice in particular, and I have to say I've only ever seen that done extremely rarely. Of course anecdotes aren't data, and people have their own specific preferences - I'd certainly not suggest it is "wrong" to have ice, but I would say it is unusual (and more a thing I associate with Americans).
For example, a particularly good Balblair whisky in my collection transforms into a sweetshop of flavours with a ~2% dilution.
Never understood how some folks drink whiskey basically like vodka, what a waste of potential. Above 40% feels just like that.
> Never understood how some folks drink whiskey basically like vodka, what a waste of potential. Above 40% feels just like that.
I’m thinking that you might be overly sensitive to alcohol on your tongue.
I've always heard about a few drops of water per glass, nowhere near 25/75, probably closer to 5/95