Whisky Whisky Whisky

Hi there,

what do you say to this

http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/2010/02 ... and-still/

and that

http://www.edringtongroup.com/media/new ... 0-71-45577

?

Greetings
kallaskander

I'm not surprised at the Lomond still story. Bruichladdich seem to want to make every conceivable type of whisky on their premises and having a Lomond still will increase their range. I do wish they'd pick a style and concentrate on getting it right, but that clearly isn't part of the business model. Someone has made a mistake, though, in claiming it is the last still of its type in Scotland (and calling it a defunct experiment). Loch Lomond distillery use Lomond stills. Not the distillery I'd try to emulate, but what do I know?

As for who owns Glenrothes - I don't think it matters much. BBR seemwed to be producing what we all took to be OBs - now they really will be OBs. I can't imagine that they'd be trying anything radically different from the current bottlings. Perhaps the new owners might permit tours...

kallaskander wrote:Hi there,

what do you say to this

http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/2010/02 ... and-still/
?

Greetings
kallaskander

Great news something else for Lord Jim and Co to play with. There might even be a series of Port Ugly Betty to collect.

I'm not sure the situation with tours will change. The article seems to say that Edrington will retain ownership of The Glenrothes distillery, and BBR will acquire ownership of the brand.

FB

Does that mean Bruichladdich can make their own blends now?

I thought The Glenrothes was already part of BB&R?

butephoto wrote:Does that mean Bruichladdich can make their own blends now?

Normally grain whisky is made in a Coffey still. But I think it can technically be made on any still; the stipulation is that it isn’t made with 100% malted barley. If Bruichladdich want to make a blend the easiest way to do it would be to buy in stocks of grain whisky. Producing it themselves would probably not be cost effective and the Whisky Regulations offer no real advantage to a distillery to produce both the malt and grain components for blends. My guess is they will use the Lomond still for malt whisky and just introduce a new range of flavours and brand names à la Loch Lomond.

Hi there,

yeah, but what about Port Charlotte distillery?

http://www.bruichladdich.com/latestnews ... illery.htm

http://www.islayinfo.com/islay_port_cha ... llery.html

The Lomond still and all the Inverleven equipment was meant for PC.

Where does that leave the project if this news is true?

Greetings
kallaskander

I had believed for quite a while that the Port Charlotte project was dead. I'm not sure where I got that impression, but I thought it was no great secret.

Incidentally, I think that if they were to reopen the distillery they would not be able to call it Port Charlotte since they have used that name for marketting Bruichladdich whisky.

He use of the Lomond still doesn't affect the potential Port Charlotte development at all. They still have the Inverleven wash and spirit stills for that. The Lomond still was separate from them.

I don't believe that they will be able to use the lomond still as a proper Lomond in the way you seem to be suggesting Nick. The rectification plates had been removed from that still long before it was decommissioned and it had just been a plain pot still for the latter part of it's working life. To run it as a Lomond they would have to have found the plates or had new ones made. I know that's not impossible but it seems unlikely given the problems of running Lomond stills.

It certainly is not the only Lomond remaining. Even if we discount the Loch Lomond equipment, which is more properly referred to as 'Lomond type', the very first Lomond still was removed from Dumbarton to be replaced by the one now at Bruichladdich. The original smaller still is now in the stillroom at Scapa (without the rectification plates).

That's interesting Willie. So why would they want a Lomond still if they can't operate it as a Lomond still?

Correct me if i'm wrong. But i take it that Bruichladdich have acquired 3 stills from the Inverleven rubble, 2 conventional stills and 1 lomond still. The lomond is to join the bruichladdich stillhouse and the conventional stills will be sited at the 'soon to be developed' Port Charlotte distillery down the road.

Doesn't seem to make good sense - lets hope it makes good whisky!

Nick Brown wrote:Normally grain whisky is made in a Coffey still. But I think it can technically be made on any still; the stipulation is that it isn’t made with 100% malted barley.

I think the stipulation is that it doesn't meet the requirements for malt, for whatever reason. I might be mistaken (it has happened once or twice!), but I think there has been grain whisky made in a Coffey still with 100% barley. I recall a review of an old grain bottling that mentioned that grain is made with whatever grain is cheapest, and at the time of that particular distillation, that was barley. --Although now that I think of it, I don't recall that it was necessarily malted.

A grain whisky must qualify as Scotch whisky - that is a long definition and means that at least some malted barley must be used; must be 40% or more in alcoholic strength; must be aged for at least 3 years in oak barrels; stuff about still size; etc.

And then, yes, it must not be a single malt or a blend.

If it ticks the right boxes, and fails to tick the wrong ones, it will be a grain whisky.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092890_en_1

Hi there,

under the new rules of 23rd November 2009 yes.

But North of Scotland distillery under the ownership of George Christie of The Speyside distillery did distill grain whisky fom 100% malted barley.

It seems that experiments started with Coffey still distilled malts as soon as the stills were erected.

Many did abandon the experiments because it was said that those malts showed eratic traits in their maturing process.

Lochside did it and many more. So when Loch Lomond wanted a new category for their Coffey still malt and the SWA refused on the ground of that not being a historical whisky category they were outright wrong and I am sure they knew that.

Greetings
kallaskander

kallaskander wrote:So when Loch Lomond wanted a new category for their Coffey still malt and the SWA refused on the ground of that not being a historical whisky category they were outright wrong and I am sure they knew that.

The SWA is a lobbying organization. It doesn't make the Regulations - that's the UK Government.

In any case, I can't see a need for a new category (would we have a new category for every brand of whisky?). The question is whether a whisky made using 100% malted barley using a Coffey still should be a malt or a grain whisky. I suspect that the logical answer is that it should be a malt, but I guess in calling for a new category, Loch Lomond Distillers would have played up the difference between their whisky and a malt whisky - with a result that they shot themselves in the foot. Pure speculation, though.

Nick Brown wrote:That's interesting Willie. So why would they want a Lomond still if they can't operate it as a Lomond still?

I think they are just adding capacity Nick. Capacity for what is not quite clear yet.

Nick Brown wrote:The question is whether a whisky made using 100% malted barley using a Coffey still should be a malt or a grain whisky. I suspect that the logical answer is that it should be a malt, but I guess in calling for a new category, Loch Lomond Distillers would have played up the difference between their whisky and a malt whisky - with a result that they shot themselves in the foot. Pure speculation, though.

The precedent seems to be that it is grain whisky, and I think that's as it should be--SMSW should only be made in pot stills. But I know that's not how the regs stand.

Mr Tattie Heid wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:The question is whether a whisky made using 100% malted barley using a Coffey still should be a malt or a grain whisky. I suspect that the logical answer is that it should be a malt, but I guess in calling for a new category, Loch Lomond Distillers would have played up the difference between their whisky and a malt whisky - with a result that they shot themselves in the foot. Pure speculation, though.

The precedent seems to be that it is grain whisky, and I think that's as it should be--SMSW should only be made in pot stills. But I know that's not how the regs stand.

That's exactly how the Regs stand.

To be a single malt, it must be distilled entirely using pot stills and the mashbill must be 100% malted barley. Change the stills or change the mashbill and it’s grain whisky.

Nick Brown wrote:That's exactly how the Regs stand.

Well, good then! But I'm confused, and will have to go back and read up on the Loch Lomond controversy.

I don’t know the details – just what I have inferred.

That is: Loch Lomond either do or intend to make whisky using Coffey stills and 100% malted barley.

Meanwhile, Nikka produced and marketed a Coffey Malt Whisky a couple of years ago.

Somewhere along the line, the UK Government was looking to update definitions in the new Whisky Regulations and in the draft, this type of whisky would have counted as a grain whisky. Loch Lomond objected and felt that this type of whisky was neither a Scotch single malt, nor a Scotch single grain. It needed a third category.

Someone may have argued that this was not a traditional style of whisky, but that’s a red herring. Whether or not something is traditional is not a barrier to being defined in law. Of course, it could have been open to Loch Lomond to argue that what mattered was whether a whisky was made from 100% malted barley – hence their whisky would have been a Scotch single malt whisky. But in choosing to play up the difference between their whisky and a single malt, and given that grain whisky was going to be defined as whisky which is neither a malt or a blend, they effectively made the case for their whisky being a grain.

Now, I’m not sure that these were the representations made, or whether we are just speculating (happy if Loch Lomond want to come on here to explain).

But in setting the definitions, the UK Government did engage in consultation and did consider responses. Obviously the SWA response carries some weight – it has the implied support of much of the industry. But the UK Government is not bound to accept the argument of numbers – sometimes the lone voice arguing a single sensible view can prevail. But in this case, the minority view didn’t prevail.

Quite right too – IMO. Consumers need a few clear labels, not a plethora of rare categories which end up meaning nothing.

But it would be stupid to call a whisky made from malt only a grain whisky, wouldn't it?

Malted barley is a grain - along with lots of other stuff.