What are Single Malt, Blended, Vatted, and other Scotch terms?

Scotch terminology can be a bit confusing at first.  Even the name itself, Scotch whisky, is confusing?  Where did the "e" go?  Well, I'm not going to get into that one right now, but I am going to explain some terminology that describes different types of Scotches, and what those terms actually mean to the Scotch drinker (if anything).

The easiest way to understand it is that there are two major ways of classifying Scotches.  First is by where and when they are made, and second is by what they are made from.  The term "single malt" actually addresses both of these questions.

Where and when a Scotch is made.  In addition to the regions (which I won't get into here), this is a question of how many distilleries and how many seasons the Scotch is made in.  A single Scotch was distilled at a single distillery, in a single season.  Blended Scotch, vatted Scotch, or scotch that doesn't specify, is usually a mix of Scotch from different distilleries, and/or year.

What Scotch is made from is also, obviously, important.  A malt whisky is a whisky made exclusively from malted barley, often and traditionally kilned over a peat-fueled fire.  Grain whisky is still made primarily from malt, but also contains other grains (unmalted barley, rye, wheat, or corn typically).

So there are essentially four categories here:

Single Malt Scotches are Scotches made only of malted barley, at one distillery, in one distilling season.

Single Grain whiskys, contrary to their name, are made from multiple grains, but are distilled at one distillery, in one distilling season.

Vatted whisky is a "blended" whisky made entirely of single malt Scotch.  That is, it is all malted barley, but can be a mixture of different years and different distilleries.

Blended whisky is a blend of whiskys mad from different grains, in different years, and/or at different distilleries.

So what's the best?  Single Malt, right?
Well, this is where people have a lot of misconceptions.  Everyone thinks single malt Scotch is inherently better than the rest.  They certainly can be the most expensive.  My challenge to these people would be to taste Johnny Walker Blue or Double Black Label against Glenlivet 12.

The reality is that no one category is inherently "better" than any other.

Single malts tend to be the most expensive, for a very good reason that has nothing to do with quality.  When they're gone, they're gone.  Since the law requires single malts to be distilled at a single distillery, in a single season, each year, for example, there is only so much Glenlivet which has been in cask for 12 years.  If they sell all of it, there is no way to produce more "on the fly."  Distilleries often distill, age, blend, and bottle more than one brand of whisky, so there are definitely ways to adjust, for instance, using more or less in blends vs. single malts, etc.  But those decisions have to be made before blending and bottling, and often before barrel aging, requiring a prediction on what demand will be like for certain whiskys 8, 10, 12, or even 25 years in advance.

The reality, however, is that there is an easy argument to make that vatted or blended whiskys are actually a better quality product.  At the very least, they are more consistent.  If a barrelmaster does not like a Scotch he tastes out of the barrel, or does not think it is consistent with the brand's profile, he has two options if that barrel was intended for a single malt.  1) bottle it anyway, especially if the variation is slight but it is still a high quality whisky; 2) give up on making it a single malt and either blend it or throw it away.

On the other hand, when a barrelmaster tastes a cask intended for a blended whisky, he can make infinite adjustments.  If it is too dry, he can add some whisky which was finished in sherry casks.  If it is not smokey or peaty enough, he can add more peaty whisky.  The goal in making a blended or vatted whisky is to create a whisky each bottling which not only tastes great, but is consistent to the previous year.

And, the reality is, there are only a handful of companies in the Scotch game.  Most of them own several distilleries and several brands.  They make a lot of whisky, and each year, they taste tons of casks.  Those which are most similar to their "big name" single malts get bottled as single malts.  Those that aren't, or those that are in excess of the quota they've set for their single malts, get blended.

So you are often drinking the exact same whisky, prepared by the exact same people, when you sip on a single malt and a blended whisky, even if the label is different.  

So in short, don't worry about price point or about what type of Scotch you're drinking.  Find one you like.  The single malts will vary slightly from year to year, but should stay in a very similar flavor profile.  If you find a blend you like, it should stay consistent year to year!  Cheers!

What's With the Sediment in My Beer?

This is a follow up post to my post on sediment in wine,  A lot of the same questions apply to beer, and some of the answers are very different.  What is the sediment in my beer?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  Should I drink it?

First, what is the sediment?  Like wine, there are a couple of answers to this.  The most common answer is that it is the yeast remaining in the beer.  This happens for two reasons.  One is because a beer was bottled unfiltered.  The other is that a beer went through bottle conditioning.  There are some situations in which a sediment or haze could be a sign of bad handling of the beer some time between brewing and consumption.  Mostly, though, this is a deliberate choice by the brewer, whether traditional or untraditional to the particular style of beer.  Unfiltered beers have dead yeast cells (lees) deliberately left in the beer in order to contribute to the flavor, color, and body of the beer.

Bottle conditioned beers undergo a secondary fermentation, usually with the intention of adding carbonation naturally, in their bottle.  The dead (or, in some fresh, bottle conditioned beer, even living) yeast obviously remains in the bottle.

In terms of if the sediment is good or bad, with the exception of beers which are not intentionally hazy, the haze and sediment is usually a good thing.

Should you drink it?

Well, that's really quite a subjective question.  The lees add flavor, body, and texture to a beer.  They are also, apparently, quite nutritious, offering protein and lots of vitamins.  That being said, I'm a big texture person, so too much can leave a chalky or gritty mouth feel.  This is why, at a great beer bar, the server will ask you, before serving you a beer which throws sediment, if you like the sediment.

My personal preference varies on the size of the bottle the beer comes in.  That sounds strange, right?

Well, if a beer comes in individual serving bottles, and has been poured properly, and is agitated ever so slightly before service, the sediment is spread out throughout the beer and quite manageable.  If, however, the beer is served in a large format bottle (like a 750ml bottle), and has been sitting upright, ALL of the sediment is likely to be present in the last glass served.  That's a bit much for my personal taste.  Similarly, draft weiss beers and belgians often throw a lot of sediment, even enough to turn them from pale gold to hazy gray in color, toward the bottom of the keg, particularly if they are served upright.  Those last few glasses are a bit too much sediment for me.

At the end of the day, if you are drinking a Belgian beer, a wheat beer, or even some British styles, chances are the sediment in your beer is harmless at worst, and tasty at best.  It's really your choice whether to indulge or stick to just the liquid!

What's with the sediment in my wine?

A lot of people probably have questions about the sediment at the bottom of a bottle of wine.  What is it exactly?  Is it good?  Is it bad?  Should I drink it?

Well, these questions are all complicated.  In short, sediment in wine comes from many sources.

Sediment can consist of debris from the winemaking process, lees (dead yeast cells), and tartrate crystals, or, usually, some combination of the above.

Wine is naturally a hazy substance.  The yeast which has created the alcohol is suspended in the wine, as are tiny particles of grape skin, pips, seeds, etc.  Many wines are filtered or fined to remove sediment, although, unfiltered and unfined wines are becoming more popular for several reasons (biodynmic and vegan winemaking, health concerns, and a healthy respect for more natural wines among them).  Moreover, the process of filtering out or, especially, fining out "undesireable" sediment can also remove things which positively affect the way the wine develops with age.  This is why white wines, and red wines meant to be drunk young, are more often filtered or fined.

Moreover, as wine ages, tartrates crystalize in the wine, particularly if the wine is stored in or transported in, cool temperatures.  These are perfectly harmless, but not temperature stable, substances found in all wines.  As the wines chill, they crystalize and fall to the bottom of the wine.  Barrel aging wine allows many tartrates to crystallize before the wine is bottled, but wines which are bottled young have more tartrates to crystalize.  Many winemakers "cold stabilize" their wines, chilling them and removing tartrate crystals before bottling the wine.  Like filtering and fining, the problem is that you can also filter out many things that contribute to desireable changes during bottle aging.  So, again, this is much more common in wines meant to be consumed in their early years.

As far as if sediment is good or bad, the answer is really neither, but leans toward good, particularly n older wines.  Sediment is perfectly harmless, and the compounds in the sediment, particularly grape remnants and lees, can contribute great flavors to wine as they age.  As far as if you should drink sediment, the general feeling seems to be no.  This is the main reason to decant wine (as opposed to aerating it, which also involves putting it in a decanter).  By carefully pouring the wine into the decanter, and by again, carefully pouring from the decanter to the glass, you can avoid most, if not all, of the sediment.  If a little sneaks into the glass, though, it's not the end of the world.  I think for the most part, the aversion to sediment is more of a personal taste, and based primarily on texture, especially since sediment settles at the bottom of the bottle and glass, so the last sip of the last glass poured would have quite an interesting texture to it.

Why are Belgian Beers So Strong

So I read something interesting the other day that I thought I would share.  Ever wondered why Belgian beers, many of which were originally, or still are, brewed by priests, monks, and nuns, are so strong?  Seems counter intuitive, doesn't t?  Especially since most monastic breweries also produce a "patersbier" or "fathers' beer" which is very low alcohol, and which is what the actual monks drink.

Well, this is an interesting example of laws changing the history of the drinking world forever, and not always in the way intended.

In 1919, a socialist lawmaker named Emile Vandervelde encouraged the passing of a law (named after him), which sought to reduce the negative affects of alcohol on the working class.  The Vandervelde law outlawed restaurants and bars from serving distilled spirits, and limited retailers to selling a minimum of two liters of distilled spirits to a customer, making it a more expensive investment than buying smaller quantities.

The law did not apply to beer, and thus, brewers started brewing stronger beers, adding candi sugar, more malt, wheat, oats, and other ingredients to raise the gravity (sweetness) of their mash, thus also increasing the alcohol content of the finished product.

The craziest part of this story?  The Vandervelde Law wasn't repealed until 1984!