Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehsuk | Hacker News Reader

> Whisky is distilled to around 70% alcohol by volume (vol-%) then diluted to about 40 vol-%

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.

View on HN

> I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.

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:

https://www.youtube.com/c/ralfystuff/videos

Heh ok time for my Ralfy rant. Ralfy is ... odd. He'll argue about the price of whisky being too high one day then another that supermarkets are lowballing the price and ruining its prestige. He speaks very authoritatively on many subjects but occasionally you'll catch him talking about a topic you're familiar with and you realise he's just talking shite. An example being his review of Bulleit Bourbon where he waxed poetic about it being this little authentic Bourbon, or something along those lines, then obviously he got called out and followed it up with a rant about how he had been deceived by Bulleit when really he should've just known better (the issue is that Bulleit use a fairly common model of having a large distillery in Indiana called MGP to make their whiskey, which you then bottle + brand yourself. It's not dishonest or sinister, but it's certainly not some cosy family business).

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

Sure he can be "odd", but I find him entertaining all the same. And as with all things "internet" don't rely on the word of one person.

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.

To each his own, I probably like a bunch of stuff you don’t - nothing wrong with that. I just never met anyone to share my Ralfy thoughts on so these thoughts just bounce around in my head with no outlet - my friends are either not into whisky or are not interested in watching videos about it on YouTube :-)

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 .

I'm maybe kinda lucky in that my dad worked in the business for ~40 years, from lowly warehouseman all the way up to distillery manager. I also worked as a warehouseman and in the filling store filling casks in my early twenties for a brief stint. I've seen how the sausage is made and have gotten to hear the skinny on "internal matters" that others maybe wouldn't, and get the jist of the points he makes about the industry.

But he's an acquired taste for sure :)

My understanding is that MGP makes rye whiskey for just about everyone because of the complexity of dealing with rye grain (not a distiller; can't offer more detail). Many distilleries make their own bourbon or other American-styles whiskies including Tennessee-style, etc.

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.

You can still probably produce a unique and good "craft" product even using spirit from large scale spirit producers such as MGP.

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?

> 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.

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.

It is still common to add a couple of drops even if it's already at 40%

Many enthusiasts do, like myself. There are very few whiskies I don't prefer with a tiny drop of tap water. It really depends on the whisky.

This one is 50%, and quite tasty:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/308475536

I add a little water even to non cask strength whisky, and it’s a very common practice. It’s why Scottish pubs have small water jugs on the bar. It’s common among a lot of other whisky drinkers I know so I think ‘often’ is entirely reasonable here.

There is obvious difference for a cask strength whiskey and a 40% ABV one. But I doubt if people can reliably tell a whisky is diluted with a few drops of water in a double blind taste test. I tried and failed. IMO a lot of tasting has to do with the ritual

If you can't taste it then you are already ahead! If the few drops you add, which are free, taste the same as the expensive whisky, you are left with more tasty whisky to drink.

> 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.

> 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.

No true Scotch whisky

> > Whisky is distilled to around 70% alcohol by volume (vol-%) then diluted to bout 40 vol-%

> 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...).

> That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both

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.

> The paper states "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water", which is clearly not always true,

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 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.

"Cask strength" literally means it hasn't been substantially diluted from the cask. ie it's a higher percentage than you're typical bottled whisky. And as you stated yourself, the expectation is that the drinker would often dilute to taste themselves. So you're not actually disagreeing with the statement you're attempting to rebuttal.

> 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.

The paper goes on with "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water". It wasn't in my quote, but the paper completely disregards whisky bottled at higher ABV%. Something I think is important when talking about dilution.

> "rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.

I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.

> The paper goes on with "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water". It wasn't in my quote, but the paper completely disregards whisky bottled at higher ABV%. Something I think is important when talking about dilution.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com