“Real Whisky” – some thoughts…

Real Whisky?

I’m on holiday this week, so finally have a wee bit of time to catch up on various forums with my Brand Ambassador hat off and my whisky drinker hat on.  Please note these are my opinions, not those of my employer, William Grant & Sons.

One of the most interesting debates I’ve come across recently is the Campaign for Real Whisky (name and acronym still TBD), which is being discussed on Mark Connelly’s WhiskyWhiskyWhisky forum.  I started to write a brief contribution to the discussion but, as I thought about it more and more, I realised this is actually a very complex issue and one that requires careful thought before action.

So I thought about it.  A lot.  And my potential forum post got so large I decided it would disrupt the flow of the forum, so I decided to put it here on my blog instead, and post a link in the forum.  I certainly don’t have an answer to the debate – but this will hopefully generate some additional food for thought.  Here goes…

Many good points have been made in the discussion thread already and the forming opinion seems to be that clearer information on labels is the only way forward.  But how much additional information is really required for each individual to make their own informed choice?  Is it enough to simply highlight which whiskies are non-chill-filtered (NCF) and non-coloured (NC)?  These are certainly key features of a whisky, but they are not the only factors on which a purchasing decision should be based.

Many people would claim that NCF/NC produces a “traditional” whisky – but where, and when, does “tradition” start and end?  Others would claim that colouring is an additive, and so should be banned – but surely the influences from any previous contents of a cask used to mature Scotch whisky are additives as well?  And these influence colour and flavour much more than a drop or two of E150a.  Neither is banning of colouring for Scotch whisky analogous to banning colouring for Bourbon, as Bourbon barrels must be made from virgin oak and so there is no “additive” influence from the cask, other than from the wood and the char level.

So chill-filtration and colouring are only two of the influencing factors.  And neither of these is any more or less “traditional” than a host of other factors.  If we believe there is a need for labelling stating NCF/NC, why not mandate that all single malt and single grain whisky labels must include clear information on every character-influencing factor?

Taking some examples from single malts; barley species, nitrogen content of the barley, peating level (of the original barley and the final whisky), mash tun type, mash temperatures and times, yeast strains/forms used, fermentation period and temperature, still shape and size, distillation temperatures, timings and cut-points, filling strength, an age statement and the water source used at the various stages of the process.  All of these factors, and others, will influence the final whisky to some extent – and what form of each of these factors would we accept as being truly “traditional”?

Current prevailing wisdom is that a large proportion of a whisky’s character potentially comes from the cask, so the labels should also clearly state the precise provenance of the cask used.  This would include, but not be limited to wood type, original source (eg the name of the bourbon/sherry/wine/rum/port rather than the forest from where the wood was cut – although maybe the forest is the key factor!?), the level of toast/char, the number of times the cask has been reused and, if also applicable, which other Scotch whiskies have been matured in that barrel, or in a barrel using any of the staves currently comprising that barrel.  If a whisky is double-matured or otherwise re-casked, all information on all casks and the period in each cask must be included on the label.  These factors potentially contribute significantly more to the final character than NCF/NC – so it surely makes sense to fully spell out this information so that potential buyers can be better informed?

The label should also advise what type of warehouse was used, along with the precise location of that warehouse and the location of the cask in that warehouse.  If the cask is moved during maturation, all warehousing information must be included on the label.

This obviously isn’t limited to single-cask bottlings.  Clearer labelling needs to apply to all “traditionally married” single malt bottlings.  And, bearing in mind that most of the bigger brands of malt will usually marry together hundreds, if not thousands, of casks to create a batch, some labels may need to come in book form.  Or on a DVD.  This could have an impact on production costs and therefore on price, but hopefully everyone will happily pay the extra for the privilege of informed choice.

Of course, for blended malts/grains/Scotch, each label should clearly state the proportion of each component malt and grain, as well as all of the provenance information discussed above for each of those component whiskies.  We might need a DVD box-set for the label information on these…

And what about nutritional information?!  I need a red-amber-green pie-chart on my bottle, dammit! In fact, it would be great if a suitably qualified person can explain for my benefit which of NCF or CF is better for my heart and waistline!

So you see, NCF/NC is only part of the story.  Only with detailed labels comprising all of the salient factors are we each able to select whisky that ticks all the boxes we each like to be ticked.  Or at least, we *think* we like to be ticked.

Or we could just taste the whisky and decide whether we like it, rather than making a decision based on partial information and the resultant preconceptions.  It is interesting to note that the NCF/NC movement has only really taken off in the wake of certain European countries requiring producers to include this information on labels.  Before this, people drank a given whisky because they liked the taste, regardless of how that taste was achieved.

Has CAMRA stopped the production and sale of “non-real” beers/ales?  No – a quick bit of internet hunting suggests real ale currently accounts for around 6% of the total beer consumed in the UK.

Will a “real whisky” campaign stop the production and sale of “non-real” whiskies?  Probably not.  But unless it is very carefully thought through, it has the potential to cripple the entire industry.  Why?

Firstly, remember most “real ales” are only available in their country of origin, whilst Scotch malt whisky is globally available.  It should also be borne in mind that the majority of real ales are purchased and consumed in pubs where the landlord will be only too happy to answer your questions and let you try before you buy, whereas the majority of whisky is purchased for consumption at home, and so it can be hard to ask questions and even harder to taste before purchase.

This is where specialist shops, private tastings, clubs and, perhaps especially, whisky festivals come in, as they provide a wonderful way of tasting whiskies without the associated expense of buying a whole bottle.  If I then want more information on a whisky I have tasted, I can ask.  For me, asking questions and attending masterclasses plays an important part in a good whisky festival (as opposed to just seeing how many unusual or lost-distillery bottlings I can quaff in 4 hours).  This allows a distiller or bottler to explain the details to people who are sufficiently far along the whisky-explorer path to want to know why a given whisky tastes the way it does.  Whilst we’re on the subject of festivals – it’s worth considering whether the rise and rise of whisky festivals around the UK is contributing to the demise of the traditional whisky bar, as these used to be the only places where you could easily ask questions and taste whiskies without paying for a whole bottle…

But coming back to the main point of “real whisky”.  I currently have around 50 open bottles of whisky including distillery and independent bottlings.  Some are old, some are young, some are CF, some are NCF, some are coloured, some are non-coloured and so on.  And there are occasions for all of them.  Moments when I think “I fancy a such and such”.  I have chill-filtered/coloured bottlings from large volume producers that are absolutely wonderful.  And I have non-chill-filtered/non-coloured bottles from independents that I probably wouldn’t have bought had I tasted it first.  And vice-versa.

So, clearer labelling with NCF/NC may well provide additional information to individuals who believe that the only type of whisky fit to grace their lips is un-coloured and NCF.  But what about all of the other factors that contribute to the drinking experience?  I find it more than slightly worrying that so many people appear to be of the opinion that anything other than NCF/NC is not worth drinking.  Information on a label cannot guarantee a better experience and (here’s the rub) may actually stop people from being adventurous enough to taste a whisky that doesn’t tick the right box on the label.  If you stop to think about it, this could have very serious consequences for the industry as a whole.

Having grown up in Speyside and lived through the horror of distillery closures in the 1980s, the malt enthusiasts of today have a huge debt of gratitude to all producers for keeping the flag flying against all the odds.  Variety is the spice of our currently flourishing global Scotch whisky category, and that includes the big guys, the little guys, the tiny guys and the independent bottlers.

So rather than expending energy on pushing for additional, (mis?)information on labels, we might do better to keep an open mind, try (and retry!) as many whiskies as you can find and ask questions about them.  And keep buying the ones that you like, and that you can afford, regardless of whether they’re young/old, CF/NCF, coloured/non-coloured, malt/grain, single/blended, etc, etc, etc.  Because surely any whisky you enjoy is “real whisky”?

Slainte!
Jamie.

Advertisement