Classifying Scotch whisky by region - the Jim Murray view

[Exciseman]

In Jim's last article for the SMWS magazine, he's taken the opportunity to 'blow to bits' the concept of classifying Scotch whisky by region.

This is a subject on which I agree entirely with JM. Yet many, many retailers still insist in laying out their stores/websites by region or sub-region.

What is a typical Islay? What is a typical Speysider? Ask twenty people and you'll get twenty answers.

So, time to bin geographical classification.

Much better to classify malts by taste profile instead.

[Willie JJ]

I agree with your premise, but that's too difficult a tool for the marketers to manage so it won't happen in my opinion.

[MacDeffe]

This isn't news, I've heard this being said ever since I started drinking whisky

If you wan't to you can find regional similarities between whiskies, but it's easy to find whiskies within a "region" that are as different as they can be

A couple of things are sure.

1. SWA operates with regions.
2. There's a great chance Islay whiskies are peaty , so it's convenient to have Islay as a region

Steffen

[Yello to Mello]

I stopped caring about regions/subregions probably within a year of being passionate about whisky, especially about scotch sub regions. I think it still matters from a retailers poinnt of view, moreover if its wine, beer, or even cigars.

There is still a romanticism with trying different regions for a flavour varience for novices to experience a spectrum.

[Malt-Teaser]

But regions are great marketing gimmicks for the distilleries and sellers.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

Don't tell me you haven't noticed the distinctly different terroirs of the left and right banks of the Spey.

[solera]

Don't tell me you haven't noticed the distinctly different terroirs of the left and right banks of the Spey.

Now I thought terroirs was Bruichladdich provenance if you pardon the expression!

[DavidUK]

I think the concept of the six regions is a valid one, despite there not being a typical profile from any of the regions.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

I think the concept of the six regions is a valid one, despite there not being a typical profile from any of the regions.

Then in what way is it valid?

[DavidUK]

I think the concept of the six regions is a valid one, despite there not being a typical profile from any of the regions.

Then in what way is it valid?

Because it's helpful for whisky novices as generalisations can be made and understood much easier with six regions than one hundred seperate distilleries.

[scotchio]

The regions thing is handy in the sense of a very loose generalisation and to some degree there are common elements of style for some whiskies from some regions.It's certainly handy from a marketing /introducing view. How many folk first became aware of whisky variations via the regional classic malts?

[Nick Brown]

The regions thing is handy in the sense of a very loose generalisation and to some degree there are common elements of style for some whiskies from some regions.It's certainly handy from a marketing /introducing view. How many folk first became aware of whisky variations via the regional classic malts?

I certainly did. Regions are great for teaching people to spot different flavour profiles, even if the regions are just pegs to hang the profiles on. With experience you can set the regional concept aside but you have to find a way in for people first.

Classifying whisky by flavour profile has never been done successfully IMO because it ignores the variation between expressions from the same distillery. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop Dave Wishart from selling his books where he attempts to do such a classification.

[scotchio]

The regions thing is handy in the sense of a very loose generalisation and to some degree there are common elements of style for some whiskies from some regions.It's certainly handy from a marketing /introducing view. How many folk first became aware of whisky variations via the regional classic malts?

I certainly did. Regions are great for teaching people to spot different flavour profiles, even if the regions are just pegs to hang the profiles on. With experience you can set the regional concept aside but you have to find a way in for people first.

Classifying whisky by flavour profile has never been done successfully IMO because it ignores the variation between expressions from the same distillery. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop Dave Wishart from selling his books where he attempts to do such a classification.

Exactly.I still think in terms of those regional styles aswell when I'm trying to workout where a whisky fits in in relation to others. The regions thing may have been sullied to some extent by claims of terroir but to some degree the regions do have traditions of creating certain styles. ie heavier peat on Islay, light/peat free lowlands,mid peat/coastal qualites islands,creamy MotR midlands,light but full flavoured highlanders,old fashioned heavier smoly hightlanders etc. Course there are 3/4 specific speyside styles aswell.

I often wonder what impact location has on the sale profile of a malt. Island locations offer salience.How else could something like Jura or Tobermory maintain it's advanced profile ahead of many far better distilleries producing similar whisky on the mainland.

[Nick Brown]

I agree that location can help enormously with the marketing. I suspect it can also hinder some brands - is it an accident that distilleries in the unfashionable Lowlands and the unknown Campbeltown region have dwindles whilst the rugged, sexy sounding highlands and islands have fared well.

[Lawrence]

Classifying whisky by flavour? How bloody boring can you get?

[The Third Dram]

I view the 'legitimacy' (or lack therefof) of maintaining regional classifications as directly related to whether or not distilleries wish to emphasize aspects of 'locality' throughout their production cycles and continue persisting in attempting to offer a truly unique product that 'speaks' of that locality, or (instead) merely wish to market as many flavour variations as possible (think cask finishing here, for instance) that can only, in the final analysis, serve to cloud any claims of the importance of 'locality'.

The 'romanticism of regionality' dies hard, it seems. That said, in a very few cases, it still does make sense.

[olikli]

His scores should be taken with a truckload of salt, but JM is absolutley right here. But the uselesness of regions should be obvious to any moderately expecrienced whisky drinker, IMHO.

[bpbleus]

I use two categories to classify Scotch whisky: those that are made in Scotland and those that are not.

[MacDeffe]

When I introduce people to whisky with a tasting I use catagories of whisky, which are only slightly based on regions

I usually have a Standard OB, something peated from Islay, a sherried whisky, A cask strength whisky, and independent bottling, and an old whisky. I used to have lowlander there as well when it was wasy to find younger IB Rosebanks . You basically need whiskies that comes with a story (real story, not made up like Thor). It's great if you teach people about different flavours and its not that hard without regions

Steffen

[Mr Tattie Heid]

The thing is, if you are geographically oriented, as I am, then you like regions. You can't help but notice that there is an island with eight distilleries, and that about half of all of the distilleries in Scotland are concentrated in one area. But geography is geography, and whisky is whisky. It's too easy for novices to confuse the two.

[Lawrence]

The thing is, if you are geographically oriented, as I am, then you like regions. You can't help but notice that there is an island with eight distilleries, and that about half of all of the distilleries in Scotland are concentrated in one area. But geography is geography, and whisky is whisky. It's too easy for novices to confuse the two.

My God! It's uncanny, you sound just like Jim Murray.

[scotchio]

The thing is, if you are geographically oriented, as I am, then you like regions. You can't help but notice that there is an island with eight distilleries, and that about half of all of the distilleries in Scotland are concentrated in one area. But geography is geography, and whisky is whisky. It's too easy for novices to confuse the two.

I like the idea of regions and to me it does make loose sense in terms of styles and history. Not terroir but stylistic similarietes for whiskies from a similar region have existed historically. In order to make sense of anything vast the mind needs to simplify and generalise/create a stereotype against which to compare others. The idea of regional stereotypes helps to make sense of the 120 or so producers and the myriad ages and casks.

Are regional styles a fact. I'd say yes to a degree. Would Laphroaig stand out like a sore thumb if produced in Rothes?Why do Glengoyne take exception to being considered lowland instead of highland? Of course the fact is you can produce any style of whisky anywhere but the regional identity is a part of tradition and tradition is a part of whisky.

Do Cambeltown malts share a briny quality? Are lowland malts light and unpeated? Are most of the heavily peated malts traditionallly from the islands? Are there 3/4 essential common styles produced on speyside? For me yes. These are regional generalisations and like any stereotype help to make sense of a very complicated world as points of comparison.

As Lawrence (perhaps lightheartedly pointed out) categorizing by flavour is dull and close to insane(look at the bold Joynsons flavour map) It kind of works but is trying to be overly precise and is pretty soulless and has no sense of tradition. I love my 5/6 fuzzy generalisations.

Last night I had a lovely GM Linkwood 15,although a Speysider it was quite highland in style. If that phrase makes sense to you then the idea of regions as a form of shorthand makes sense.

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

whisky regions made sense - in times gone by. It was eons ago that whisky was considered a local product and the region where it was made was important. As important as the locality of the barley the water and the place of maturing.

In a way the "Glenlivet" dispute about the Livet being the "longest river in Scotland" was one of the starts of regional thinking about whisky in terms of quality - and marketing.
That many Speyside distilleries called themselves Glenlivet and after Mr Smith went to court were allowed to add - Glenlivet to their name and did so with pride was probably the very starting point of locality and the regions for whisky.

All that is highly unimportant today. Region barley water and place of maturation are of no consequence in modern whisky production.
In a more and more uniform world with a more and more unified product it is only consequent to get rid of rests of individuality.

So let's do away with the regions. Whisky barley comes from around the world and is malted in a concentration of 5 or 6 malting plants then it is distilled cost-intensively all over Scotland - more is the pitty - to be concentrated again in a few maturation regions - one of the biggest being the Glasgow whisky belt.

Who cares for regions anyway? And why?

Greetings
kallaskander

[scotchio]

Hi there,

whisky regions made sense - in times gone by. It was eons ago that whisky was considered a local product and the region where it was made was important. As important as the locality of the barley the water and the place of maturing.

In a way the "Glenlivet" dispute about the Livet being the "longest river in Scotland" was one of the starts of regional thinking about whisky in terms of quality - and marketing.
That many Speyside distilleries called themselves Glenlivet and after Mr Smith went to court were allowed to add - Glenlivet to their name and did so with pride was probably the very starting point of locality and the regions for whisky.

All that is highly unimportant today. Region barley water and place of maturation are of no consequence in modern whisky production.
In a more and more uniform world with a more and more unified product it is only consequent to get rid of rests of individuality.

So let's do away with the regions. Whisky barley comes from around the world and is malted in a concentration of 5 or 6 malting plants then it is distilled cost-intensively all over Scotland - more is the pitty - to be concentrated again in a few maturation regions - one of the biggest being the Glasgow whisky belt.

Who cares for regions anyway? And why?

Greetings
kallaskander

I do for the reasons given above.Mind you it makes no odds. The regions are here to stay.

If Bunnahabhian and Bruichladdich were produced on speyside there wouldbe a third of the number of tasting notes for them on this site.Likewise Rosebank had it been a speyside malt. The only whiskies to suffer through regianal categorisation are the speysiders through sheer weight of numbers.The others are made salient by the regions.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

The thing is, if you are geographically oriented, as I am, then you like regions. You can't help but notice that there is an island with eight distilleries, and that about half of all of the distilleries in Scotland are concentrated in one area. But geography is geography, and whisky is whisky. It's too easy for novices to confuse the two.

My God! It's uncanny, you sound just like Jim Murray.

Fortunately, I don't look like him.