Talk:Scotch whisky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Scotch whisky as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotch whisky article.
Article policies
WikiProject Scotland
 Scotch whisky is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 1 selected anniversary

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Malt Whisky

Contents

[edit] Mostly undated questions and comments added at the start

Blended, pure malt, single malt. Who can explain it the article ?


Not sure what "pure malt" is, but I'm starting a tree of Single-Malts which will I think eventually end up including reviews of many/most/all? of them. (WikiDave)

Isn't somebody doing a whisky wiki sub-project? Surely this page should be linked in? quercus robur 01:32 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

this one? Wikipedia:WikiProject Malt Whisky

How about this: http://www.whiskypedia.tk  ?? (jr)

"Pure malt": You might be thinking of Pure Pot Stills, which are a kind of Irish Whiskey. They're not blends, because they're made in a single batch using only barley, but they're not single malts because some of the barley is left unmalted. I don't think any Scotch is made this way, but, to be sure, I don't know very much.

Correction: There is such a thing as "pure malt scotch." Most blends contain both single malt whisky and grain whisky. "Pure malt" is blended scotch, but a blend made only from malts: no grain whiskies. I suppose that means it falls somewhere in between blended (as that is normally meant) and single malt scotch. You don't see "pure malt" very often though.

Correction to your correction: This is a falsified truth, a lie and i can prove it. Think about it, nothing is exactly pure because by definition pure means perfect. And Last time i checked 99.9% of existance is not considered as perfect. Just something to ponder upon.

I pondered. And I must disagree, much as I enjoy pedantry. In my dictionary some of the definitions for pure are clean, unsoiled, unmixed, not adulterated, free from guilt or defilement, chaste, and that and only. For a word to be used correctly it only has to match one definition, and that and only seems to do the trick. Even before we get into excellent, fine, which it matches too, but probably wasn't the intention. Notinasnaid 17:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The more common term for Pure Malt Scotch is Vatted Malt, and yes, it consists of Single Malts "vatted" together, without any grain whisky added. - Gentgen Oct 7 2003

I just added info on vatted malts to the page, and did a major re-org. Gentgeen

On http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/ they consistently use "Scotch Whisky" rather than "Scotch whisky" . Is it worth as page move? Mintguy (T)

Not sure I am using this page correctly. Regarding "pure malt", it is only recently that this term has come to be equated with vatted malt. For decades the term Pure Malt meant exactly the same as Single Malt. Many, many distilleries put the term pure malt rather than single malt on their single malts. It wasn't until a couple of years ago when Diageo tried to switch Cardhu from a single malt to a vatted malt and used the term pure malt on the label that this was even a matter of debate. However there are still lots of single malts labelled as Pure Malt or Scotch Malt or some other term other than single malt on the market so it is confusing to tell people that pure malt means vatted malt, when clearly the majority of pure malts they might buy in the store or on e-bay are really single malts with an older label on them.

I see that you have added statement extensively throughout the scotch entries, I don't believe that this is true at all, could you produce some evidence? I know of many instances in the past where bottles were labeled as "Malt" But Pure Malt being synonymous with Single Malt? I also dispute that there are ""lots of single malts labelled as Pure Malt or Scotch Malt or some other term other than single malt on the market""

Hi - yes, The Glenfiddich Pure Malt is the best known but a few years ago on Malts-L they complied a list of about 20 different distilleries that used the term Pure Malt rather than Single Malt. There are other variants like 'all malt' or 'unblended' and so on. I think people who are new to the game are confused by the new SWA definitions that fell out of the Cardhu affair. Given the current interest in old bottles many of these pure malts (that really are single malts) are appearing on the market, especially on e-bay and such and there are still ots of them in well-stocked bars.

Wow, Maltmaven, comments like this will not endear you to many editors. Regardless: This is meant to be a reference for regular people, NOT whisky anoraks. As such "on the market" means currently available through standard outlets and not the rare or collectible resale market or a whisky bar with 200 + bottlings. Pure Malt is NOT a current standard. So instead of editing every entry having to do with whisky, perhaps a single paragraph explaining your position would suffice? Scotchblog

[edit] Dram

Hi, does anybody know how much "one drum" of Whisky is? In Scottish bars, this is the normal size for a drink, but it's certainly not as little as a fluid dram

A dram is just a colloquial name for a serving of whisky, so far as I know. Whether or not it's a formal measure, that's how it's used ("would you like a dram" in a Scottish house is an invitation to an amount of whisky decided by the host's generosity). It isn't the legal name for the amount that is served, which is quoted in millilitres. Notinasnaid 08:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A dram was indeed one measure, which used to be one fifth of a gill in Scotland. (Wikipedia has no page about the gill as a unit of measure). Nowadays its metric, as noted above. --Nantonos 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can find no source to support this exact definition. Warrack's The Scots Dialect Dictionary defines dram, n a glass of whisky, v to drink, tipple. Chambers Dictionary, 1988, defines dram, n a contraction of drachm: 1/16 or formerly 1/8 ounce avoirdupois; a small drink of alcoholic liquor; a tipple, vt to drink a dram.
So, this gives specific measurements, for a unit called a dram. Avoirdupois backs up the idea that a dram, technically, is 1/16 ounce. Now, the serving measure in a Scots pub was indeed until recently 1/5 gill, a fluid measure of 5 fluid ounces (per Gill (unit)), in other words one fluid ounce. Fluid ounces and ounces are not interchangeable, but if we assume water as the measured material they very nearly are. So a pub measure in scotland was either 8 or 16 "drams" if it is used as a measurement. I therefore conclude that the use of "dram" to mean "a measure of whisky" has only a loose historical connnection to the idea of "dram" to mean a particular amount of stuff, and that a dram was never a formal term for a pub measure (though of course a pub would treat an order for a "dram" as a request for a single measure, just as an order of a "whisky" or a "wee hauf" would be). I speculate (without any supporting evidence) some common ground in going to the apothecary for a "dram" of medicine. Anyway, even the most parsimonious of Scots would hesitate to serve a guest with an amount equal to 1/8 or 1/16 pub measures! Notinasnaid 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Can I suggest that someone change the picture as the 'Whiskey' spelling (just visible round the curve of the bottle) seems to contredict the whisky vs. whiskey debate on the page. --Neo July 2, 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Lol - since I wrote this the following line has appeared on the page...
If it says Scotch Whiskey or Scottish Whiskey it is possibly counterfeit.
this really tickled me :> --Neo July 3, 2005 17:09 (UTC)
I can see why you'd think that, but if you look at the high resolution image, you'll see it's the real McCoy. Notinasnaid 3 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

[edit] How long

does Scotch Whiskey keep once you open a bottle?

So long as you close the bottle... well, some people say that whisky starts to deterioriate once opened. I haven't noticed this especially, except that very old and delicate whisky might lose some of its finesse after a few months. Also, a small amount at the bottom of an otherwise empty bottle seems to deteriorate. In no case will it go off, it will just lose quality, even after years. A bed of nitrogen should preserve the whisky as it does for wine; I haven't tried it, however. Notinasnaid 07:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This, btw, counts for all distilled spirits with an alcohol content of over 20%, saving cream drinks which can shift.

217.166.90.180 14:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distillation

This page contains a great summary. It'd be great to add more detail on some of the distinguishing factors among whiskies, including shapes of the pot stills. In visits to distilleries and tastings, I found it fascinating to see all of the differences in how they are made, and in how strongly two distilleries a short distance from one another (e.g. Laphroaig and Bunnahabhain). One step in the process that's not covered here that'd be interesting is how a spirit safe is used, and also how taxes are evaluated.


  • My two cents on this. Laphroig uses steer mashes coming from beer brewing (from Whitbread, company that holds Laphroig) so the circuit to put and mix liquids is quite different from traditional ones. --3rz8 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some erroneous Info here. Laphroaig does a percentage of their own malting on site. The rest is purchased from mainland malsters.

Whitbread does not own Laphroaig. Jim Beam Brands/Beam World-wide does. I believe the Whitbread Brewery is owned by a Belgian company, nd the Whitbread Company in the UK which used to own the brewery only owns restaurants now - and no breweries. --scotchguy, 22 August 2006

--3rz8 15:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I apologise for mistake, Laphroig WAS owned by Whitbread Group from 1975 (later called James Burrough Limited)(some reference here http://www.islaywhiskysociety.com/laphroaig/index.html ) them it took over to Jim Beam. In 2003 (my last visit there) steel mashes were same used for beer production (dismissed from a brewery).

[edit] Dewar's

Shouldn't Dewar's be included somewhere in this article since it is a Scotch Whisky. I'd write something in myself but to be honest I don't know what classification of Scotch Whisky it falls under. Misterrick 04:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This isn't a complete list of whiskies, there are just a very few examples listed from out of the many hundreds. So I don't think it needs to be added here. If you can write a whole article on it, that would be a good thing, provided you can find enough to say (at least two paragraphs). You'd want to mention all five of the blends that Dewar's make. Notinasnaid 11:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Production

I did a fair bit of overhaul on the production. Im not a native speaker, and i'm a little dyslectic on top of that, so feel free to correct all spelling/grammer issues you find.Martijn Hoekstra 14:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Change removed?

I had added a link to http://www.whisky-distilleries.info which is a great resource for distillery history. Any reason why it was later edited out??

70.130.158.104 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)JohnnyRnR


[edit] Deleted "list of scotch whiskies" section

I will delete this section which had just four whiskies. There is already Category:Whiskies, which can be subdivided if necessary, and this arbitrary list of 4 doesn't seem to add anything. If it is really needed, long (and this would be long) lists should be separated to their own article. If the intention was to list world's most popular scotch whiskies, the heading needs to say so, to avoid it becoming a link farm. I also removed some lesser known whiskies from the examples: these are just notable examples, not complete lists. I have removed Balbair before; if you really think it is notable enough, please discuss here rather than starting a revert war. Notinasnaid 14:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional variants

This section needs a tidy.

  • Scotland (i.e. the country) has never been divided into those four regions. If there were four traditional whisky-producing regions then say exactly that (and give a reference for this please).
  • The use of digits and "&" rather than words is not the correct style.
  • The "depending on who you are talking with" phrase is not encyclopaedic style
  • The "The differences & similarities, like all things with Scotch, make for endless discussions. " sentence is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.
  • It would be much better for the reader if just one good source was used (e.g. The Whisky Guide) and referenced. It isn't really that interesting that different sources have different divisions. In fact, don't bother giving a definite number at all - just list the regions that you think are worth mentioning.
  • It should be explained why the grouping is useful - there are taste similarities. Each region should have a sentence or two indicating the defining features of that region (geography and taste, etc).
  • It may be interesting (as the above web page states) to note that the Campbeltown region is really a historical artifact - one wouldn't create a region round just two distilleries).

Colin°Talk 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Talisker appears under both Highland and Island. It is distilled on the Isle of Skye - the only whisky from that island. Therefore it is definitely only and island malt!

True that there needs to be a small tidying. However the fact is that there are NOT taste similarities among regions - nor are there UNIVERSALLY recognized regions. One fact is though that no entity (Incluing the Scotch Whisky Association) recognizes The Islands as a region - But some editors insist on listing it - hence differing views. Also I would certainly dispute that The Whisky Guide should be held up a the "good source" There are a number of sites and many of them differ.

[edit] Photos

This article would be greatly improved by some pictures of the various stills, vats, barrels, etc. Colin°Talk 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Macallan

The Macallan is listed as being from the Speyside region, but it is self-described as "Highland Scotch Whisky" - what gives?

Some research. (1) two reference books say it is Speyside (2) http://www.themacallan.com/index_uk.html says "single malt Highland scotch" (3) the same page says "The Macallan distillery on Speyside". Some guesswork: "Highland" is not a regulated term on Scotch Whisky, and the marketing department thought it would sell better that way. Notinasnaid 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotchblog 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Speyside is situated within the Highland region, so a distillery in Speyside can refer to itself as Highland - because in truth, it is. Macallan chooses to refer to itself as a Highland Malt, but it is literally set next to the Spey river in what is referred to as the Speyside region.

[edit] Last sentence of intro

Due to an issue with the confusing and misleading term "Pure Malt", the Scotch Whisky Association recently introduced new terminology, whereby a "Vatted Malt" is to be referred to as a "Blended Malt" this has met with much push-back from the industry.

2 problems.

  1. due to an issue What issue? The the confusion the issue or is the issue something else?
  2. What does push-back mean? Is it just 'resistance'? Or something else?

Ashmoo 03:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Whisky" in British English

In Great Britain, the term whisky almost always refers to Scotch whisky, and the term "Scotch" is rarely used by itself.

Up to a point. It's true of Scotland, but speaking as an English drinker of (mostly Scotch) whisky, I don't think it's true of the rest of Great Britain. Few English and Welsh bars and pubs restrict themselves to whisky from Scotland, and it's unusual to hear customers ask for 'whisky' without qualification. However, this may be a modern development, as drinking habits have become more varied over the last 30 years or so.

Countersubject 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last sentence in the section about the name.

The sentence reads: No whisky other than Scotch whisky may be made in Scotland. This sounds very very strange in my eyes, and I'd love to see a source for it. If no source provided, I'll remove it since I doubt it can be true.--vidarlo 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A little research produces the text of the Scotch Whisky Act 1988: "1.—(1) It shall be unlawful—
(a) to produce in Scotland; or
(b) to keep in Scotland for the purpose of maturation; or
(c) to keep or use in Scotland for the purpose of blending,

a distillate of spirits produced as described in the definition of whisky contained in section 3(1) of this Act unless it is or, as the case may be, has been produced as described in any definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order under that section."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880022_en_1.htm would be a good source.

Why such a law? Actually, it sounds very likely. Scotch whisky enforces certain minimum standards on Whisky (e.g. aging time) which other kinds of whisky, or generic whisky, may not. Some producers might be tempted to produce (more cheaply) generic whisky and sell it, not label it Scotch whisky, but rely on a Scottish location to convey an impression that the contents are "Scotch whisky". Notinasnaid 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content

I removed today two additions by the same editor, for different reasons. 1. An external link. Removed because it was put at the start of the list. Sorry, this behaviour is characteristic of self promotion. There seem to be rather too many sites which are added because they are "about whisky" rather than adding to the article; some more removal is called for. 2. Four books were added to the "References" section. They were:

  • Barnard, Alfred (1905). How To Blend Scotch Whisky. London. Joseph Causton & Sons. No ISBN
  • Broom, Dave (1998). Whiskey - A Connoisseur's Guide. London. Carleton Books Limited. ISBN 1 85868 706 3
  • Broom, Dave (2000). Handbook of Whisky. London. Hamlyn. ISBN 0 600 59846 2
  • Wishart, David (2006). Whisky Classified - Second Edition. London. Pavillion Books. ISBN 1 86205 716 8

The reason to remove them is that this was a new editor, and so I rather suspect that these were not references used in the writing of the piece; rather that the editor misunderstood the list of books as an open list of books about whisky. To the editor: please do discuss, new knowledge and outlook is always welcome, but it can take a while to get the hang of what belongs in articles. Notinasnaid 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

reply from Maltmaven: OK, If you will note, I made many small but significant changes throughout the body of the text. It included a number of errors and misconceptions. I will move the link to the bottom; it is an excellent source for all the processes of whisky making. I thought the convention nowadays was to add new content at the top. Really, the list would be better in alphabetical order.

Barnard's book refers to aging, Broom's two books are good sources of information I used to correct some of the misconceptions (ie use of heat rather than smoke to dry malt), though most of this stuff i know by heart. Wishart's book on classifying flavours did not contribute directly to my edits.

I appreciate your understanding of my role as a new editor and acknowledge that it may take some time for me to get tht hang of it. I hope I don't mess things up too much in the process.

MALTMAVEN

Thanks for replying. I think if you check the history you'll find you weren't logged in for some or all of your edits, so the addition to References appears as the first edit by a new anonymous user... Notinasnaid 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is an encyclopedia we want to use well-respected resources. Barnes is THE leading authority on Scotch whisky even this long after his death and it is most appropriate to include his re-released book as a reference. Maltmaven 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Maltmaven

Can you get an ISBN so we can judge for ourselves please? Otherwise I'd say it stays off. --Guinnog 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Maltmaven: thanks for your constructive feedback. As I said, I am new here. I did not intend to be nasty and I do apologize. I'll back off for now and see what happens to the page. This article and two other related ones touch many of the current hot issues on the various discussion boards, but are a little weak on the basics. I hoped to contribute. Perhaps we might try actually citing our sources rather than simply listing them. In any case I'll resist any further editing until I've learned the protocol. I'm not going away mad, I'm just going to take some time to learn how to contribute as constructively as others have. Thanks for drawing my attitude to my attention. Maltmaven 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources is a good idea, it overcomes many ambiguities. You can use the new <ref> tag to automatically generate references at the end, while citing inline. Notinasnaid 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm not reading this any more, but I thought it might be helpful to post a few policy links: Be Civil; Assume Good Faith; No Personal Attacks. Please let's maintain the usually high standards. Everyone. Notinasnaid 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Maltmaven: Excellent advice. I have removed my comments that others found disagreeable.

[edit] External Links

--ScotchGuy 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Here is my input on the issues (links) that were needlessly brought up by people who do not have a history of contributing to this article. But be that as it may...

The Scotch Blog - IS a "blog" but is a well-respected source of info. I have used this site for bg on some of my (many) edits. But I've been accused of shilling for the site, so make your own mind up about it.

The Edinburgh Malt Whisky Tour — Out of date (2003) - should be removed

Scotch Whisky Association - official site, should definitely stay

The Scotch Malt Whisky Society - Commercial org - should go

Whiskyfun Tasting - A "Blog" but excellent tastingnotes froma "malt Maniac"

Whisky Magazine Online - Magazine site, commercial with limited information

Whisky Podcast - A "PodCast" good info, but just the news - If Blog are all removed, this needs to be removed

The Whisky Guide - Commercial site - should be removed

Whisky-news.com - A great site, but more or less a Blog as well

Distillery Pronunciation Guide - no opinion, useful, but not a source for the article as far as I can tell

Malt Maniacs - Also basically a blog, but lots of info.

I'm against having links (and books) added which are not sources for the article. Bottomline is that ALL of these articles are a mess and the quibbling over the links does little to solve the core issues.

Good to see some discussion of this. I'd like to suggest that anyone interested in this area read Wikipedia:External links, which is the closest thing we have to a policy in Wikipedia, and especially the section "Links normally to be avoided". By my reading we should certainly remove all the blog links (I only removed the one link self-identified as a blog). Now, let's have some more discussion. Notinasnaid 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--ScotchGuy 14:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)I agree with having discussion, but I have a problem with people who people come along and edit articles when they don't know the subject matter or the source material - so someone thinks that a site from professor is "good" (but they don't know it is out of date, or leaves a commercial site; and removes a self-proclaimed "blog" but leaves a self=proclaimed "podcast". What's the difference between a "blog" and a "podcast" or an "html website" - it's not the technology used it is the content. So what I am saying,is that all blogs aren't "bad" just because they are blogs. I agree that we have a lot of self-promotion here (Notinasnaid, you've been involved in a lot of the back and forth over time) but having self-proclaimed "keepers of the rules" who ONLY watch the recent changes pages and run around making edits, based on application of rules and NOT on knowledge of the topic, are ruining a lot of articles. Look at my history - I ONLY edit the whisky pages, because that's what I know - but there are plenty of people who popped up with the past few months and have deemed themselves administrators.

--ScotchGuy 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) - I just went through and removed links one at a time and gave my reasons for doing so. This is a start. please feell free to discuss or explain why you are removing other sites - In MY mind, JUST because it is a "Blog" is NOT reason enough - is it completely opinion; is it of a commercial nature; is it of a personal nature- THESE should be the criteria, not matter WHAT technology is used. Thanks

Hi, I've been removing some links from the generic Whisky article, pretty much for the same reasons you've noted above. A couple of links might be appropriate for this article instead:

Here's a link I didn't remove, but might also be appropriate here...

  • For Peat Sake Whisk(e)y reviews, worth duplicating as a link perhaps?

Bardcom (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drying using Smoke

Having toured the Glengoyne distillery several years ago, I was led to beleive that their drying technique is 100% air drying.

I would suggest an edit of: "When the desired state of germination is reached, the malted barley is then dried. Most distillers use smoke in the drying process, but some (e.g. Glengoyne) use air drying only without the exposure to any smoke. Many (but not all) distillers add peat to the fire to give an earthy peaty flavour to the whisky."

Comments?

CorradoVT 16:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Hi All, I give up. I have removed maps made by "Brian Gotts" numerous times. He keeps putting them back. They are wrong. 1. The islands is not a region. 2. His Speyside isn't even in the right place 3. He originally didn't even have Islay on the map I will suggest that someone replace his map with a correct one form any of a dozen sources - including the SWA.

No wonder these entries are a shambles. --ScotchGuy 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I observe that the map quotes three sources. Is the problem that the sources are wrong, or that the information is incorrectly transcribed from the sources? Notinasnaid 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Parallel discussion: Talk:Single malt Scotch#Map Notinasnaid 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of categories

I have observed two categories are being filled in: Category:Scottish Malt Whisky Category:Scottish blended whisky. I think some discussion is needed. In particular

  • The names have inconsistent capitalisation
  • Surely it is "Scotch whisky", the name "Scottish whisky" would generally be considered a poor translation or something on a fake? Note that the supercategory Category:Whiskies is not broken down purely geographically, it includes Category:Bourbon whiskies.
  • I'd like to open discussion on the proposition that the division into two categories is artifical or misleading, since almost all the distillers listed in the first category make whisky for blending.

Comments? Notinasnaid 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production areas

I removed the following:

In 2005, the Scotch Whisky Association released new guidelines for nomenclature[citation needed]. Many in the industry feel that the new guidelines do little to clarify confusion among consumers, and some believe they create new confusion[citation needed].

I couldn't find any sources for it on the website of the Scotch Whisky Association. 'Many in the Industry' is weasel wording aswell. If there are any sources for this, feel free to rephrase it and put it back (with source). Martijn Hoekstra 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoyment

Can anyone add a section about drinking scotch? What is the best/most traditional way to enjoy it? Neat, on the rocks, mixed, etc? Cold or room temperature? Is it ok to store it in the freezer with the vodka? isn't there an entire art of pairing scotch with cigars? There were my questions, and I was disappointed that they weren't included in this article. 75.73.41.41 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this. It's what I was looking for, and came away empty handed. Aaadddaaammm 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put it on the page, but generally scotch whiskey is taken neat, on the rocks, or with a splash of water. The water is generally accepted to help expand the flavor. A bit of air time also brings out the flavor--7 minutes is, I believe, reviewer standard, and also entirely arbitrary. Scotch is very rarely mixed except in the case of drinks like a scotch and soda (exactly what it sounds like, although soda refers to soda water, not coke). Beware cocktails which call for scotch--the flavor varies so greatly across regions and distilleries that you can end up just wasting your whiskey. Scotch should be stored at room (or cellar) temperature. The reason for is that water from melting ice both softens the dram and, as I mentioned, expands the flavor; if the scotch is below freezing, the ice won't melt. Worse, the cold numbs the flavor and aroma. This is also why it is usually only served with a few rocks: pouring a dram over a collins glass full of ice chills it too much. It can end up bitter and sluggish. I wish I knew about pairing scotch with cigars, although I suspect that you're thinking about brandy or cognac. I think a bit about serving is not out of place in this article. There is certainly a bit of history and methodology to it, especially as far as scotch reviews are concerned. 132.236.75.82 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
To expand on the comment about mixing, one should never use a single malt scotch in a mixed drink. For example, the Rob Roy is a tasty cocktail, but the sweet vermouth and bitters will mask the subtleties of a fine single malt. Use a blended whisky, such as Dewar's or Chivas, and save the single malts for sipping. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mashing & Fermentation

I changed the description of the mashing process. See mashing for details. JephSullivan 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whyte and Mackay

Can some Scotch experts help fill out Whyte and Mackay? Badagnani 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Instead of having a row of whiskies in boxes as the main image, does anyone else think that going with an image of the beverage in the glass as wine and beer do would be better? I think showing off commercial examples are important, but it seems odd that there isn't an actual picture of a dram on this page. Nestorius (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)