single/double/triple malt

[jmrl]

Some people think if there is such a thing as a single malt there must be doubles, etc. I joke a double malt is when then barman gives you two pours in the same glass. But I believe William Grant called Monkey Shoulder a triple malt. This made me wonder if the companies that produce a variety of malts at one distillery can use the term single to describe a mixture thereof? E..G a mix of peating varieties, PC+Bruichladdich or more different double+triple distilled, Springbank+Hazelburn.

The SMWS recognise Longrow, Springbank and Hazelburn as seperate distilleries in their numerical listing scheme. They Listed Loch Lomond with a new number when bottling what I suspect to be Croftengea, will they use a different number to classify Glen Douglas etc from the same distillery?

I think this post demonstartes I've got too much time to think about whisky, semantics and spend online, there: delaying done must cut the grass.

[borgom]

This made me wonder if the companies that produce a variety of malts at one distillery can use the term single to describe a mixture thereof?

I think they can use the term single as Bruichladdich have done for both their 3D and Infinity series which mixed Bruichladdich and Port Charlotte.

[Willie JJ]

The SMWS recognise Longrow, Springbank and Hazelburn as seperate distilleries in their numerical listing scheme. They Listed Loch Lomond with a new number when bottling what I suspect to be Croftengea, will they use a different number to classify Glen Douglas etc from the same distillery?

I think the SMWS will continue to issue new numbers for different malts from the same distillery. However, I suspect that the SWA won't. Wasn't that part of the reason behind the purchase and resurrection of Glengyle? Because the SWA saw only two distilleries in Campbeltown, despite the number of malts coming out of Springbank.

[Willie JJ]

They Listed Loch Lomond with a new number when bottling what I suspect to be Croftengea, will they use a different number to classify Glen Douglas etc from the same distillery?

For general info about SMWS, there are a few such occurrences of multiple numbers for malts from the same stills:

Springbank:
Springbank = 27
Longrow = 114
Hazelburn = 126

Loch Lomond:
Inchmurrin = 112
Croftengea = 122

Cooley
Cooley unpeated = 117
Cooley peated (Connemara) = 118

Presumably if they ever get a cask of Tobermory it will have a different number from Ledaig (42) and all the other variants of Loch Lomond (Craiglodge, Glen Douglas, Inchfad, Inchmoan, Loch Lomond and Old Rhosdhu) have yet to be bottled by SMWS, but if it happens will presumably get new numbers.

Also, there are distilleries that have had more than one set of stills in the complex:

Glenburgie/Glencraig (71, 104)
Miltonduff/Mosstowie (72, 109)
Inverleven/Lomond (20, 98)

[Pure Pot Head]

I'm not really that knowledgable of Scottish Single Malts. My understanding is that a single malt is basically a whiskey made using only malted barley at one distillery (although, what exact processes have to be carried out on site I'm not sure, distillation sure, but not necessarily malting or maturation?)

But I've never heard of double or treble malts. It wouldn't have occurred to me that it made any difference to the classification 'Single Malt' if a distillery uses a single type of distillate or mixes different styles using different cuts during distillation, or simply different ages and cask types. I would enjoy further posts on this subject and further insight into how the Scottish clasify these things.

Pure Pot Head

[jmrl]

The comment about the SMWS system addressed the description of the numbers refering to distilleries while clearly numbers actually refer to distinct malts which may come from a common source, despite not sharing the 'distillery' number.

My thought about mixing differing productions from the same distillery made me think you could mix two or more singles and still have a single.

Interestingly a recent post on the Malt Advocate site has a point raised by Amrut. The authorities in the United States only recognise the term 'single malt' when referring to whisky made in Scotland. 'Straight malt' is the term to be used by other producers. These statements from the States are in a right state.

[John Barleycorn]

I believe William Grant called Monkey Shoulder a triple malt. This made me wonder if the companies that produce a variety of malts at one distillery can use the term single to describe a mixture thereof? E..G a mix of peating varieties, PC+Bruichladdich or more different double+triple distilled, Springbank+Hazelburn.

It may be that I'm old fashioned or just don't understand, but to me a single malt is a single expression from one distillery. If that same distillery makes a different expression by say either adding peat or maturating in sherry or bourbon casks, then that too is a single malt, but if they then mix the two expressions together then it becomes a vatted or as it is called today blended malt. So, I just don't see how Bruichladdich can call their 3D3 expression single malt, if it contains malt from Port Charlotte then as that is a different distillery and a different expression it is therefore a blended malt.

I don't think Grants have ever marketed Monkey Shoulder as single malt. They are just playing with words, if you go to any whisky outlet you'll find it marked as blended malt.

Cheers John

[Pure Pot Head]

The authorities in the United States only recognise the term 'single malt' when referring to whisky made in Scotland.

Are you serious? This is amazing! What's that all about? Fascinating thread. The American thing has astonished me.

Are there some Singel Malts (as on the label that is) then, that combine malt whiskey from more than one distillery under their ownership or have I picked that up wrong?

Pure Pot Head

[jmrl]

Bruichladdich actually makes Port Charlotte so mixing the two is simply combining expressions from the same distillery. The ressurrection of the old Port Charlotte/Loch Indaal distillery with the equipment from the Inverleven distillery is a project ceremoniously started a couple of years ago which seems to be on rhe back burner right now.

William Grant have not referred to Monkey Shoulder as a single. It is glenfiddich+Balvenie+Kininvie. I'm not sure if it is stated on the label but I recall the term 'triple malt' being used by them in marketing.

In the states I wondered why Stranahan's was not accorded the title single malt but this comment on the Malt Advocate website suggests the answer.

[Reggaeblues]

The authorities in the United States only recognise the term 'single malt' when referring to whisky made in Scotland.

Are you serious? This is amazing! What's that all about? Fascinating thread. The American thing has astonished me.

Are there some Singel Malts (as on the label that is) then, that combine malt whiskey from more than one distillery under their ownership or have I picked that up wrong?

Pure Pot Head

"Single" refers to "one" distillery. In the case of "Monkey Shoulder" the three malts used are under the same ownership.

However, to add to the confusion, PPH, you will not that "Springbank" make three distinct malts at the same distillery - Springbank, Longrow and Hazelburn,

...same with Bruichladdich.

Now what, i wonder , would one call a combination of,say, Springbank, Longrow, and Hazelburn? Single? Blended? Triple malt?

[Pure Pot Head]

So is a single distillery one location/building/complex or is it one ownership entity? And if it's one owenership entity(say Diageo), can it encompass several production units spread geographically? The plot thickens. ]

However, to add to the confusion, PPH, you will not that "Springbank" make three distinct malts at the same distillery - Springbank, Longrow and Hazelburn,

I can certainlyu get the idea of one distillery producing more than one type of Single Malt. But I never thought there was such a thing as a single malt made from different components from seperate 'units' of a distillery company which to me is seperate distilleries?

Thanks for all the insights so far.

Pure Pot Head

[Spirit of Islay]

Presumably if they ever get a cask of Tobermory it will have a different number from Ledaig (42)

Thought 42 was Tobermory Willie and hey hadn't had a Ledaig ?

[Lawrence]

http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/trivia/smws-distillery-numbers.html

The SMWS numbers should be viewed as bottling codes and not distillery codes, if you take my point. I'm not sure if in the Scottish sense that all the Japanese & Irish whiskies that are on the list are not single malts in the Scottish sense??

As for Springbank, Longrow, Hazelburn and the Loch Lomond family; the names are merely to differentiate between peating levels and the course the wash takes through the stills (Springbank 2.5, Longrow 2 and Hazelburn 3) but actually no idea what Loch Lomond get up to in that regard.

[Ganga]

The authorities in the United States only recognise the term 'single malt' when referring to whisky made in Scotland.

Are you serious? This is amazing! What's that all about? Fascinating thread. The American thing has astonished me.

Are there some Singel Malts (as on the label that is) then, that combine malt whiskey from more than one distillery under their ownership or have I picked that up wrong?

Pure Pot Head

Me thinks someone is yanking your chain.

http://clearcreekdistillery.com/whiskey.html

http://www.anchorbrewing.com/about_us/o ... o_18th.htm

[Ganga]

Now what, i wonder , would one call a combination of,say, Springbank, Longrow, and Hazelburn? Single? Blended? Triple malt?

Why not vatted as you wouldn't be adding any grain alcohol.

[Lawrence]

[quote="Reggaeblues
Now what, i wonder , would one call a combination of,say, Springbank, Longrow, and Hazelburn? Single? Blended? Triple malt?[/quote]

It would be a single malt, the three variations come from the same distillery and the same stills.

[jmrl]

'Vatted' is forbidden by those who must be obeyed, The Scotch whisky Association. They represent the whole whisky industry as their paying members are made up of some (most but not all) of the Scottish whisky companies. We now must use the term 'blended malt' to desribe a mix of two or more single malts. Unless, I assume they come from the same distillery~: eg Springbank, Longrow and Hazelburn. We can't use the term #pure# due to ambiguity: it could refer to a single or mix of malts. I'm sure the simple term 'malt' with no further designation is also verbotin.
I read the comments in Malt Advocate when Amrut's US, importer Purple Valley, had difficulty using the term single malt to desribe their India produced whisky.

I'll dig out the full entry.

[Ganga]

If we're going to be pedantic, then they SWA does not represent "the whole whisky industry" but rather the limited whisky industry that is within their designated sphere of influence.

I see they actually pushed forward with making things more confusing. Create new terms instead of creating precise definitions of existing terms. Now you've got two "blends" to confuse the general public.

Now, can someone look up the current status of SWA's ingenious set of rules and let us know if single malt has to be from a single set of stills or if multiple stills at a distillery under one license is still considered a single malt?

[Pure Pot Head]

Now, can someone look up the current status of SWA's ingenious set of rules and let us know if single malt has to be from a single set of stills or if multiple stills at a distillery under one license is still considered a single malt?

Yeah! Come on, someone out there must be able to absolutely and definitively, unambiguously and precisely explain what the legal definition of a Single Malt is. Especially seeing as they are particularly popular in this forum. Someone must know everything that can be known

Pure Pot Head

[borgom]

According to the SWA:
"What is the legal definition of Scotch Whisky?
Scotch Whisky has been defined in United Kingdom (UK) law since 1909 and recognised in EU legislation since 1989. The Scotch Whisky Act 1988 and the Orders made under it, which came into effect in June 1990 state "Scotch Whisky" means whisky:

(a) which has been produced at a distillery in Scotland from water and malted barley (to which only whole grains of other cereals may be added) all of which have been:

1. processed at that distillery into a mash;
2. converted to a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme systems; and
3. fermented only by the addition of yeast;

(b) which has been distilled at an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 94.8% so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production;

(c) which has been matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres, the period of that maturation being not less than three years;

(d) which retains the colour, aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production and maturation; and

(e) to which no substance other than water and spirit caramel has been added.

Both the Scotch Whisky Act and EU legislation specify a minimum bottling strength of 40% by volume.

What are the different categories of Scotch Whisky?

According to traditional practice, there are five categories of Scotch Whisky:

(a) Single Malt Scotch Whisky: A Scotch Whisky distilled at a single distillery,

1. from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals, and
2. by batch distillation in pot stills.

The industry is also seeking legislation that would require Single Malt Scotch Whisky to only be bottled in Scotland.

[jmrl]

So no malt from column stills. So the three malts from Springbank when 'blended' create a single malt. Question answered. Thanks.

[Pure Pot Head]

(a) Single Malt Scotch Whisky: A Scotch Whisky distilled at a single distillery,

1. from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals, and
2. by batch distillation in pot stills.

Thanks for taking the time to quote that leglislation. In relation to the point referred to in the quote I have selected though, and this is where I think some interesting subtle nuances might exist...does a Single Distillery have to be a Single Location, with a Single set of Stills or...do some distilleries with more than one location under their ownership blend Pot Still malt whiskey's together produced in seperate sets of Pot Stills, either under the one roof or in seperate locations, to create a Single Malt under the one company name?

And does the 'principle' of batch production suggest in some way that to be a Single Malt in the sense that a lot of consumers view it, a batch should be of a specific composition and not blended with other different compositions from the same stills? Not sure if this makes sense but I find the whole 'legalities' of whiskey really interesting. In fact, should Single Malts really be composed of different cask matured composition brought together? (controversial!) What's the point of a whiskey being a Single Malt if it's kind of like a blend? Any takers

A lot of marketing rests on these definitions.

Pure Pot Head

[FirewallXL5]

A distillery is a distillery is a distillery.... it would have to be bound by physical location otherwise I suspect Customs & Excise would insist on separate licences although I can't imagine any logic in having a split-site distillery.

There's no limit on size nor on number of stills - I believe Tomatin used to have the most - but the output of various stills within a single distillery can be mixed and matched at will, it doesn't matter, it's still (sorry!) the same distillery.

As long as the bottled output is the product of a single licenced distillery it is legally classed as single malt from that distillery. If the bottled output is blended from different malt distilleries (whether from same company or not) then it's a blended malt and cannot carry a distillery name.

A distiller may produce an infinite number of 'variations' or 'expressions' from the stills within his distillery, it doesn't matter, each variant is still single malt from the producing distillery. One or 2 distillers gratuitously confuse things by hiding their product behind defunct distillery names (I'm sure you know who I mean) but again they are just different expressions of the producing distillery whatever the 'alias' used.

However if the distillery name is not stated on the label then you have to take it on trust that it comes from where they claim. (How many people know that Octomore is actually manufactured in a chemical works in Govan?).

Pot still distillation is by it's nature a batch process, it has been a standard industry technique for a long time for malt distillers to blend different batches to produce a generic distillery style and there's nothing controversial about it. It's done primarily to maintain continuity. The word SINGLE simply applies to the DISTILLERY of origin, not the CASK or the STILL or the BATCH.

Don't over-complicate things, it's really not that difficult!

[Pure Pot Head]

Don't over-complicate things, it's really not that difficult!

Hey no need to be so condescending. Sorry for asking.

PPH

[borgom]

I think the real question is what happens when a super distillery opens. Say it produces a number of different brands from the one location, if these are blended is it still a single malt?
Based on Bruichladdich 3D3 i'd say it is at the moment but I wonder if this shouldn't be tightened up?

[FirewallXL5]

I think it would be very dificult to legislate (base legal or industry defintions) on the basis of a brand name because a brand name is made-up and not constrained in terms of it's content (the whisky in the bottle).

I do think Roseisle poses certain threats to the whisky industry as we currently know it. For instance, looking 20 years on, is it outlandish to consider that as a result of bringing it on-stream Diageo will have subsequently shut down a swathe of distilleries. Suppose Inchgower, Glen Lossie, Mannochmore, Dufftown, Linkwood, Glen Elgin, Mortlach.......and then throw in Lagavulin just to make the point.

Once the licenses are terminated, by following the example currently set by Springbank and Bruichladdich, they could market a Roseisle-made single malt under various 'brand' names which happen to be those of discontinued distilleries (Mortlach, Linkwood, Lagavulin etc.,) a practice which appears to be perfectly permissible.

I don't doubt they could create adequate 'replica' whiskies (maybe in some cases even an improvement!) and the average consumer would see the name on the label and not give it a second thought. Technically or legally they would all be Roseisle Single malt but I suspect only a small number of anoraks would get het up about it.

An unlikely scenario? Well perhaps, but is it any different in principle from what the Irish did when they decanted almost their entire whisky production to Midleton? After all the Jameson distillery was in Dublin, not Cork.....

[upright]

I started stilling 3 weeks ago using only malted barley. I have to still 5 times to fill a 25 liter sherry cask. Can i call it a South african single malt in 3 years time?

[Pure Pot Head]

Maybe you can call it a South African Single Malt right now. I think the three year rule only applies to Irish and Scottish whiskey. In America it's only two years in law as far as I remember.

Pure Pot Head