kallaskander wrote: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...
Who cares for regions anyway? And why?
Greetings
kallaskander
bpbleus wrote:I use two categories to classify Scotch whisky: those that are made in Scotland and those that are not.
Lawrence wrote:We can fix that Mr. T.
If regions don't matter then Scotland doesn't matter as a region. Put Lagavulin on a barge and set up shop in Guangzhou where there's cheaper labour.
William wrote:Lawrence wrote:We can fix that Mr. T.
If regions don't matter then Scotland doesn't matter as a region. Put Lagavulin on a barge and set up shop in Guangzhou where there's cheaper labour.
ok, but then it couldn't be called Scotch.
Scotland is not a region - unless you want to classify Canada, Australia, Ireland, North America etc as "regions" of the old British Empire (I do hope you don't!)
Ipso dipsomaniac ( I made that up) you can't move Lagavulin Distllery on a (hufge?) barge and take it to China and call its whisky Scotch.
But you could make a Lagavulin-style Scotch at Benriach and call it Benriach.
Am I taking this too seriously?
Peat Sampras wrote: I do not recognise the Islands as a region though
Nick Brown wrote:kallaskander wrote: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...
Who cares for regions anyway? And why?
Greetings
kallaskander
so you would presumably have no objection if, say, peated Benriachs were sold as Islay malts or Glenkinchies as Highland malts
Mr Tattie Heid wrote:Nick Brown wrote:kallaskander wrote: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...
Who cares for regions anyway? And why?
Greetings
kallaskander
so you would presumably have no objection if, say, peated Benriachs were sold as Islay malts or Glenkinchies as Highland malts
Why would he see validity in bogus regions when he doesn't see validity in actual ones?
Lawrence wrote:
Yes, you are missing the point
kallaskander wrote:But I am all for regions and do not want to see them vanish.
Indeed it would be a loss of information if you would classify an Ardbeg and a peated Benriach only as "peaty malts".
The naming of the regions Islay and Speyside is the important information and distinction between the two because Islay peat and peat used for Benriach might differ.
And if you used Islay peat to make Benriach - how would you be able to tell them apart in a system based on flavours alone?
The same the other way round. The information that unpeated Bunnahabhain Bruichladdich and Caol Ila Highland style are not Speysiders is important.
Pete Smoke wrote:Peat Sampras wrote: I do not recognise the Islands as a region though
Have you enforced a trade embargo, and withdrawn diplomatic relations?
Mr Tattie Heid wrote:I don't have any problem with sorting distilleries by region. As I said, it's a matter of geography. What I object to is putting too much credence in regional style. It's something we see relative novices do: "I'm conducting a tasting, and want to include typical samples from each region. What do you suggest?" We invariably advise them to forget about regions and concentrate on a variety of flavor profiles. It's true you'll almost always end up with one of the Kildalton malts, and it's hard to argue that south shore Islay isn't an interesting subregion in itself. But if you walked into Gordon & MacPhail knowing nothing but regions, you might pick Bruichladdich for your Islay, Bladnoch for your Lowland, Aberfeldy as a Highlander, An Cnoc as a Speyside. If you did this after attending a tasting with carefully chosen representative samples form each region, I think you'd end up being very confused.
Users browsing this forum: Yello to Mello and 1 guest