Okay Scotch guys.

I got some Johnny Walker Blue for Christmas. I've had it before, so it's not my first bottle.

I'm not a scotch guy as a rule. But this stuff is pretty awesome. When I drink this, I get the whole "scotch" thing.

What's out there that will make me think this is crap?

Mark,

First off, I should warn you that you're heading down a deep and expensive rabbit hole. That being said, its a rewarding one and worth the journey.

There will be multiple opinions on what I'm about to say, so take it with a grain of salt.

Johnny Walker is a blended scotch. Meaning its similar to most cognacs out there. A distillery makes a whiskey, and JW blends these whiskeys from individual distilleries in various quantities to make the final product. They have a whole range, from cheapest to most expensive being Red, Black, Green, Gold, and Blue. There are some minor variations but these are the staples. The blue is the highest of their standard whiskey's, and I think its pretty darn good. Its a very drinkable and flavorful scotch.

The Johnny Walker is a blended whiskey, however, and to many scotch enthusiasts (not all) its the designer frag of scotches, or cartridge of razors. There is a certain level of snobbery that comes with scotch, namely, many scotch drinkers only drink single malt scotch (which I'll get into in a moment). Personally, I think this is unfair, and most of that is based on having had one of JWs cheaper whiskeys (or another brand) and lumping them all into the same category. Now, someone may prefer a given single malt scotch, but that doesn't make blended scotch BAD per se, its just different. I evaluate a product based on its merits. To make a comparison, while there are many French wines better than CA wines, ALL french wines are not better than CA wines and vice versa.

Single malt scotch, broadly speaking, is a scotch made at a single distillery. Some examples include Macallen, Glenlivet, Oban, Talisker, Lagavulin, Laphroig, Balvenie, and the list goes on and on. Scotland has a range of geography and climate, which causes each of the scotches from a given "region" to have its own characteristic taste. Some are more earthy, some are more peaty, some are more rocky, etc etc. Then you have age, which adds significantly to the price. Macallen is probably the largest brand, or at least the one that advertises most, so I'll use them as an example. A bottle of Macallen that has been aged in oak for 12 years may cost $50. One thats been aged 18 years costs $200. 25 years costs $1700. And it only goes up exponentially from there for obvious reasons. In comparison, a Glenlivet 18 yo may only cost $100. Part of this is due to demand, marketing, and quality, but ultimately its personal preference.

I myself really like the Islay whiskeys such as Lagavulin, Caol Ila, and Laphroaig. Talisker also probably falls into that category. These scotches are known for their big peaty taste (read, smokey). Some scotch drinkers find the peatiness revolting, however, and its a personal preference kind of thing. Macallen tends to be very smooth and drinkable. I really enjoy their scotches as well, but sometimes I'm looking for something big and bold and the Islay scotches fit the bill better.

There are so many different brands and price ranges to explore. I think the first thing to do is figure out what you like in a scotch. Do you like sweet, smokey, earthy, salty, etc etc. Most high end bars carry scotch and its a good way to try something out before plunking down the coin on a bottle. Just be advised that prices at bars can vary enormously, as I made the mistake of finding out after a couple drinks at the Ritz Carlton a couple weeks ago.

I'm sure others will chime in with their thoughts, and I'm always happy to help out. In the meantime, enjoy your JW blue. Someone must really like you as that stuff is not cheap, and while some single malt drinkers scoff at blended whiskey, in my mind, it compares quite favorably to the Macallen 18, which is a very respectable whiskey.

EDIT: I should add that older doesn't mean better. For example, while aging can bring out some flavors and tone down whiskey, it causes others to be lost. If you like big peaty whiskeys, then sometimes younger is better. For example, a 10 year old Talisker has a bigger flavor than a 16 year old Talisker. And paradoxically, costs more as well. Go figure. So while the sky is the limit on the price of old whiskeys, depending on your taste you may just end up with a big bill and a glass of disappointment. On the other hand, if you crave smoothness and subtle flavors, some of the older whiskeys are beyond sublime.

Great erudite post, Greekguy!

I don't care fore Islay scotches (Or Isle of Jura either) as the 'salty' tone tends to get in my way. I ama highland purist, and Balvnie Doublewood is my choice of desert island scotch. However, that is a personal taste that took years to find.

Also, I am amazed at the difference between neat scotch and that which has had 2 or 3 drops of water (literally) placed in two or three fingers of scotch. I never use ice, but I do like to keep my botle in the freezer to prepare for use. Warming it in a snifter or highball glass lets the taste mellow, and also lets me enjoy the aroma developing as it warmes to room temp.

I am a purist, and will not drink blends. I think Crown Royal and its ilk are horrid. But, as you say, the wine comparison is apropos. I would have said it is like the difference between Budweiser and Sam Adams and a 'local' microbrew that really cares about its ingredients and crafting resources, but CA vs French winces is pretty good too. Cigarrs also come to mind--I've never had a bad Fuente, but there are some decent Amrican cigars, and a search willfind some that 'snobs' would pass on, but are perfectly smokable and enjoyable.

If no single malts are available, I will not drink scotch, and I even have learned I do not care for Glenfiddich or Glenlivet, when they used to be 'top shelf' for me. Glenmorangie is pretty good, though.

YMMV, and beware--with other ADs, you have a product to show for your sins. This is more like a soap/cream or blade AD, where all you get is fond memories

Nothing wrong with blends..... Personally, I'd list several blends (Cutty Sark 18/25YO, Chivas 18YO, JW Blue) as being amongst the best whiskies available.

I don't think there is a 'best' out there. They're impossible to compare. You can't compare something light (say, Glenrothes) with an Ardbeg. Plus, you might hate the heavy, oily, peatiness, in which case, a bottle of J+B could be much better (for you) than a 57YO Macallan in lalique crystal.

In a nutshell, if you like it, there's nothing out there that'll make you think it's 'crap'. There are others you might prefer on any given day, but JW Blue isn't crap. Recommendations though? If you like the JW Blue, try Cutty 18/25/Tam O'Shanter or Chivas 18/25YO. Hopefully you'll just find more that you like. I must have 30 different whiskies in my cupboard, and there's not one I'd call 'crap' (now I've finished the bottle of 'teachers' - still, cleaning fluids are always useful)

(incidentally, Glenfiddich is currently the biggest volume malt, although Macallan is running it close, and will probably overtake in a few years, if current trends continue)

Love the Blue...Love the Gold Better

+99 Caol Ila. This one transports me to a scottish port city; you can feel the ocean mist (and you can almost taste the hooker.) 25 year will make pretty much anything else you have tasted seem like a bar mat shot. I'm an Islay guy as well.
Also, +1 on laphroig, lagavulin, and oban.
I have tasted too many damn good CA wines to agree on the wine analogy completely. I will say I can agree that there are style differences, but in relating it to scotch I would have to say it is more like a Bordeaux and a french Cabernet Sauvignon: one is a blend and one is pure, but they both can be damn good while they both come from the exact same place.

JW Blue is generally considered a great liqour, but not a particularly good scotch. It is smooth, don't get me wrong, but it is lacking the little things that differentiate it from other whiskeys. If you like the smooth attributes, try Yamazaki 18yr. It is a japanese made scotch-style single malt whiskey. Clean woods, great taste and feel.

I won't convince you that JW Blue is bad. I have a bottle that was gifted a year or so ago that I'm still slowly working on. It's incredibly smooth and an excellent pour. And while much is made of the price within the realm of scotch it isn't actually that expensive. Try browsing the high end selection at a particularly well stocked liquor store and you'll see $200/bottle is nothing compared to some stuff.

All that being said, when I finish this bottle I won't be buying another. It's wonderful whisky, but not $200/bottle wonderful to me. While it's very smooth and enjoyable it lacks a certain complexity and strength that I (perhaps this shows my general preference for bourbon or still developing palate for whisky) actually prefer to straight smoothness. So I'll enjoy it while it lasts and then go buy other options I will enjoy just as much for less. And if at some point someone gifts me another bottle I will thank them profusely and enjoy it again.

Some very fine points here, the most important is drink what you like.

A couple other observations/riffs on points already made but maybe not articulated in the way I prefer. First, even a "single malt" is made up of different barrels of product from the same distillery. In that sense, say Glenfiddich 12 is "blended" from different barrels of whisky made from malted barley made at that distillery. If you really want to be a purist, you would go for a "single barrel" type expression which is literally a bottle filled from a single barrel, may or may not be cut with water.

Second, peat and smoke do not necessarily manifest themself in the same way in my opinion. Peat is just decayed vegetative matter burnt in a way that the smoke is exposed to the malted barley. Some whiskies have the earthy peaty tone (Talisker 10 for example) without as much as the smoke. Others tend to have some of both whereas still others strike me as being just smoky without the earthy tones I would associate with peat alone.

Third, Scotch terminology is lame. A single malt is from malted barley (barley which is exposed to water so that it begins to germinate). Now blended scotch has some whisky made from malted barley and some made from other grains (so-called grain whisky), usually wheat, perhaps corn, who knows what else. This is where I hate the terminology because it suggests that barley is not a grain. Of course barley is a grain. Now some spirits like tequila and say potato vodka are of course not made from grains and people know that but barley is surely a grain as much as wheat but one (malted barley) gets a good connotation and one (other "grain") has a negative connotation.

All that said, I think Ardbeg 10 would make you think JW Blue is crap but that's just me.

Thanks guys, some great info here. Quite aware of the difference between single malt and blends. The Macallen has been my fave single malt. I quite like the JW Blue. Just wanted some opinions on what else might be just as good. You've given me some stuff to explore.

has anone ever tried The Macallen 30 year?

I think the advice above is good. Also, water in your whisky. Very important imo, YMMV, but I don't think I've yet found a single malt that tastes better entirely neat than with a teaspoon or so of water. In some, such as the Abrelour A'Bunadh (which is an amazing whisky, particularly at the price, at least in the UK), I have a 50/50 whisky/water split because it's bottled at around 60%, and in my opinion, non chill filtered, non coloured whiskies are at their best when at around 30% alcohol.

I won't avoid blends, but I do prefer a single malt as blends are generally blended to be smooth, and if I'm drinking whisky, smoothness isn't really a characteristic I care for. I'm much more one for flavour bomb, aggressive whiskies, which single malts cater more to (not that there aren't smooth single malts, it's just that there's naturally a wider variation in single malts than in blends).

Single Malts I think everyone should try are the Highland Park 12 and 18yo's, Ardbeg 10yo, Lagavulin 16, Talisker 10 and the Aberlour A'Bunadh. Don't be fooled by age either, while old whiskies can be very nice, I find that the quality increase is no where near proportional to the price increase, and in a lot of cases I feel older ones actually decline in quality as the whisky takes on too much of the cask flavour. I generally feel that highly aged whiskies can be used as a bit of an easy marketing ploy by some of the scotch distillieries.

StylinLA said:

Thanks guys, some great info here. Quite aware of the difference between single malt and blends. The Macallen has been my fave single malt. I quite like the JW Blue. Just wanted some opinions on what else might be just as good. You've given me some stuff to explore.

has anone ever tried The Macallen 30 year?

Click to expand...

I've not tried a 30yo Macallan, but I have the remains of a bottle of 25yo here and it is wonderful. I also tend towards larger, peaty whiskies but the older variants of some of the highland drops are very special as well. Without spending nearly that much money, do yourself a favour and grab a bottle of Highland Park (15 or 18yo if you can find it) and taste a wonderfully balanced dram.

If you were going to get either a HP 15 or 18, I'd recommend the 18. That's not to say the 15 isn't good, but the 18 is more reflective of the HP distillery style and is consistently and widely regarded as one of the best whiskies in the world.

SamF said:

If you were going to get either a HP 15 or 18, I'd recommend the 18. That's not to say the 15 isn't good, but the 18 is more reflective of the HP distillery style and is consistently and widely regarded as one of the best whiskies in the world.

Click to expand...

+100, not that much of a price difference if I recall as well.

Looks like I'm hunting down some HP 18.

I love single malts but I like some blends too. Ballantine's 17yr is a fine dram. I like it a little better than JW Blue. I *really* like many of the Compass Box blends. Those guys crank out some great drink!

arghblech said:

I love single malts but I like some blends too. Ballantine's 17yr is a fine dram. I like it a little better than JW Blue. I *really* like many of the Compass Box blends. Those guys crank out some great drink!

Click to expand...

Have you tried Sheep Dip? I've been tempted to pick up a bottle.

Drinking Scotch can get like straight-razor shaving. It becomes a matter of taste. Personally, I like 18-year Macallan. But I like Macallan 12 and Balvenie Doublewood as well. It's taken a while for my tastes to get where they are; some whiskeys that I used to like either taste too "mediciny" or "peaty" now. It's been forever since I've tried JW and I can't remember what it's like.

If you like it great! Viva la difference!

thatsilverguy said:

Drinking Scotch can get like straight-razor shaving. It becomes a matter of taste. Personally, I like 18-year Macallan. But I like Macallan 12 and Balvenie Doublewood as well. It's taken a while for my tastes to get where they are; some whiskeys that I used to like either taste too "mediciny" or "peaty" now. It's been forever since I've tried JW and I can't remember what it's like.

If you like it great! Viva la difference!

Click to expand...

mmm, peat, medicine

has anone ever tried The Macallen 30 year?

Click to expand...

Yes. Wasn't very impressed. It's rather woody (not surprisingly) and quite dry - rather unlike the usual sweet, rounded Macallan style. Give me an 18YO or 12YO, and don't bother with the 'Fine Oak' range....

Have you tried Sheep Dip? I've been tempted to pick up a bottle.

Click to expand...

Tried that one too. But it was at 'Whisky Live', it was heading towards the end of the day, and I don't remember much more than 'That was loverlyyyyy....' But, to be honest, at that point, I'd have thought 'Teachers' was 'loverlyyyy.....'

OldAF said:

Have you tried Sheep Dip? I've been tempted to pick up a bottle.

Click to expand...

It's on the list but my cabinet has something like 30 bottles in it. I have to finish some things before I get to buying. Plus, I just found out that there is a Sake brewer in TX and their bottles are available a few blocks from where I work. Stupid leaky wallet