Not a member? - Register and login now.
All registered users can read our entire magazine archive.

Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

General chat and talk about whisky.

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby irishwhiskeychaser » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:40 am

I don't think it would be wise for Cooley to mention anything about the 'new' Kilbeggan spirit until they can view the progress of it for a few years.

Iain I told you to join the bladnoch forum .... oh but no... you ignored my advice because you were too busy peering through your new spy glass. :wink:
User avatar
irishwhiskeychaser
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby jmrl » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:13 pm

It appears a Scottish malt distillery practices pure pot distilling. I can't say more as I've said too much already. I think they're on to me....
jmrl
Gold Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotchland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby jmrl » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:14 pm

It appears a Scottish malt distillery practices pure pot distilling. I can't say more as I've said too much already. I think they're on to me....
jmrl
Gold Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotchland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:38 pm

Thats a very cryptic reference jmrl....any chance of fleshing it out a little??
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby jmrl » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:05 pm

Sorry. I was told as long as I didn't tell. Frustrating. I don't want to break my word not least because the source may no longer share other gems. But thought you might like to know the pratice is followed. The distiller uses the make for blending. Obviously its not a small distiller's experiment or we would have been offered bottles at silly prices. I'd love to taste it though.

I think I hear someone outside,,,,oh no they've come for me..save yourselves
jmrl
Gold Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotchland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:32 am

jmrl wrote:Sorry. I was told as long as I didn't tell. Frustrating. I don't want to break my word not least because the source may no longer share other gems. But thought you might like to know the pratice is followed. The distiller uses the make for blending. Obviously its not a small distiller's experiment or we would have been offered bottles at silly prices. I'd love to taste it though.

I think I hear someone outside,,,,oh no they've come for me..save yourselves



That is really, really interesting. Obviously it's a pity you can't tell us more. I wonder why it's such a closely guarded secret? It would only be of interest to a small number of enthusiasts, and by the sounds of it they're doing it on a large scale to provide a certain flavour element for blends.

I wonder if they double or triple distill it though? I imagine double would leave it pretty rough.

Why go through all the effort of a different mashbill and production process to produce part of a blend? Weird.

Suggestions/Thoughts anyone?
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby JCSkinner » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:18 am

Like you say, a double distillation could be overly rough, not a characteristic to justify a new mashbill.
So who's triple distilling in Scotland, and supplies a blend with an element of pot-still spiciness?
JCSkinner
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:02 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:00 am

Springbank and Auchentoshan both triple distill as part of their main operations. I know that Bruichladdich have a triple-distilled malt maturing as part of their experiments but they wouldn't be producing malt in bulk for blends. As you say JC it would take someone with a good knowledge of Scotch blends to pick it out.
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby JCSkinner » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:28 am

Aren't Auchentoshan coming to Dublin for a Celtic Whiskey Store tasting shortly?
It's a question to ask them, perhaps.
JCSkinner
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:02 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Aidan » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:03 am

cathach wrote:Springbank and Auchentoshan both triple distill as part of their main operations. I know that Bruichladdich have a triple-distilled malt maturing as part of their experiments but they wouldn't be producing malt in bulk for blends. As you say JC it would take someone with a good knowledge of Scotch blends to pick it out.


Frank at Springbank has worked at Midleton... All speculation, of course.

Bruichladdich actually quadruple distill some malt now.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:19 pm

Aidan wrote:

Bruichladdich actually quadruple distill some malt now.



True they do and they made 12,000 bulk litres of 'Trestarig' (the triple distilled thingy) previously but that I'd imagine would go into single malt, for collectors especially. This pot still is being made on an ongoing basis for a blend....
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:49 am

I seriously can't let this one go, if you're shy PM me!!
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby upright » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:58 am

Back to the question. Is there something like a single blend?? Malt and grain from the same distillery.
User avatar
upright
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:49 am

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Aidan » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:19 pm

upright wrote:Back to the question. Is there something like a single blend?? Malt and grain from the same distillery.


Hewitts used to be a "single blend" (not really a real term), and Cooley have lots of them.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby jmrl » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:46 pm

Lochside and Ben Nevis produced malt and grain (in seperate stills) then put them into the cask at the same point. A single blend. Today only Loch Lomond practices dual distillation in Scotland.
jmrl
Gold Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotchland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Willie JJ » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:20 pm

The Ben Nevis single blend is still available though as a 40yo. There was a 42yo bottling of a Lochside single blend by Scott's, but it seems to have disappeared. Pity, because it was fantastic.
User avatar
Willie JJ
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: nr. Edinburgh

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby cathach » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:11 pm

upright wrote:Back to the question. Is there something like a single blend?? Malt and grain from the same distillery.


Ireland:

Anything by IDL except Redbreast or Greenspot so:

Jameson, Tullamore Dew, Dunphys, Hewitts, Paddy's, Power's etc.

Cooley:

Lockes, Inishowen (peated), Millars, Dundalgan (for Aldi), Tesco Irish, Sainsburys/Asda Irish, Kilbeggan etc.

Scotland:

Springbank you'd think, but it's been mentioned that almost all Scots grain distilling happens in certain big complexes.
I can't find info on whether Springbank have their own grain column but they do bottle their blends themselves and all of that so you'd expect it.
cathach
Silver Member
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 am
Location: Galway, Ireland

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Deactivated Member » Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:55 pm

Single blend is a silly term because blend implies mixing more than one thing, so a blend can't be single.
Deactivated Member
 

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby DavidH » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:16 pm

Nick Brown wrote:Single blend is a silly term because blend implies mixing more than one thing, so a blend can't be single.

That assumes that "single" qualifies the word "blend", but it doesn't. "Single malt" could be restated as "single and malt", meaning that this is malt whiskey and it all comes from the one distillery.

Contrast this with "single cask" where "single" does qualify the word "cask" and means that the product comes from only one cask.

So, IMHO, "single blend" is a reasonable construction based on the "single malt" prototype.
DavidH
Silver Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:55 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Deactivated Member » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:52 pm

DavidH wrote:
Nick Brown wrote:Single blend is a silly term because blend implies mixing more than one thing, so a blend can't be single.

That assumes that "single" qualifies the word "blend", but it doesn't. "Single malt" could be restated as "single and malt", meaning that this is malt whiskey and it all comes from the one distillery.

Contrast this with "single cask" where "single" does qualify the word "cask" and means that the product comes from only one cask.

So, IMHO, "single blend" is a reasonable construction based on the "single malt" prototype.

I'm afraid I don't agree. Single malt doesn't mean single and malt, it means what it says - just one malt. The single refers to the malt and not the distillery. If it referred to the distillery, then every single malt would also be a single cask whisky - because you'd mean single and cask, with the single referring to the distillery, not the cask. A single malt is a single ingredient that might have gone into a blend. But it didn't, it was bottled as a single malt.

If you are going to apply single to blend, it is either an oxymoron (because a blend requires more than one ingredient) or it is tautologous (because every blend is a single one, in the same way that every hole is a whole one).

But while I think about it, your post does beg the question of what counts as a distillery. Most people define it as the stills, and since a grain whisky and a malt whisky are made with different stills, it doesn't really matter whether they are sold under the same label, they are the products of a different distillery. The fact that the stills are located on the same site is neither here nor there. But then you get into awkward discussions about larger distilleries that have more than one stillhouse. Do they produce one malt or two? Why can Glenfiddich have two separate stillhouses, yet Kininvie and Balvenie are separate distilleries (on the same site as Glenfiddich, as it goes).
Deactivated Member
 

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby DavidH » Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:42 pm

Nick Brown wrote:I'm afraid I don't agree. Single malt doesn't mean single and malt, it means what it says - just one malt. The single refers to the malt and not the distillery.

There is nothing I like better than an argument over semantics... :wink:

Allow me to quote the Scotch Whisky Association:

What is a single whisky?
A single whisky is the product of one particular distillery.

Is a blended whisky a whisky? Yes. So a blend that is the product of one particular distillery is a single whisky. It is, to wit, a 'single blend'.

I stand by my original assertion, that 'single malt' is just shorthand for 'single and malt whisky'.

Coming at it from a different angle, a 'single malt' does not, in general, contain one malt whisky alone. It contains a vatting of various malts produced in the one distillery. One might be aged 15 years, another 18, they might be casked in different kinds of wood, they might even have been distilled differently in the same stills. Are you calling these the same malt?

If it referred to the distillery, then every single malt would also be a single cask whisky - because you'd mean single and cask, with the single referring to the distillery, not the cask.

As I said, the 'single' in 'single cask' is not the same 'single' as the 'single' in 'single malt'. A whisky that is both single cask and single malt may be referred to as a 'single cask single malt' without tautology since the two 'single's have different meanings.

But while I think about it, your post does beg the question of what counts as a distillery.


Hmm, lots of meat in that discussion too.
DavidH
Silver Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:55 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Deactivated Member » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:20 pm

I agree that this is a disagreement over semantics - but you have been selective in your quoting. The full quote from the SWA would have been:

SWA wrote:After industry-wide consultation in 2004 and 2005, it was proposed to formally define the following five categories of Scotch Whisky:

Single Malt Scotch Whisky: a Scotch Whisky distilled at a single distillery (i) from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals, and (ii) by batch distillation in pot stills. It is also proposed that Single Malt Scotch Whisky should only be bottled in Scotland.

Single Grain Scotch Whisky: a Scotch Whisky distilled at a single distillery (i) from water and malted barley with or without whole grains of other malted or unmalted cereals, and (ii) which does not comply with the definition of Single Malt Scotch Whisky.

Blended Scotch Whisky: a blend of one or more Single Malt Scotch Whiskies with one or more Single Grain Scotch Whiskies.

Blended Malt Scotch Whisky: a blend of Single Malt Scotch Whiskies, which have been distilled at more than one distillery.

Blended Grain Scotch Whisky: a blend of Single Grain Scotch Whiskies, which have been distilled at more than one distillery.

One of these terms would appear as the sales description on every bottle of Scotch Whisky sold.


No mention of single blends here. I'm sure if they had wanted to define a single blend, they would have done. But they probably thought the concept was as nonsensical as I do. A blend is a blend is a blend. They are either all single or none is single. Single blend was just a marketing gimmick thought up by the execrable Loch Lomond distillers (Bruichladdich without the style). In the case of Loch Lomond, their pot stills and coffey stills aren't even in the same building. That really is a case of two distilleries producing two whiskies under the same name.

I also agree about the dubiety of different whiskies from the same distillery - using different casks, mashbills, ages - being combined to produce a single malt. We have a discussion here that raised the same issues.
Deactivated Member
 

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Aidan » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:07 pm

What I want to know is whether or not Do They Know It's Christmas is a hit single, since it's performed by members of a number of different bands.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Mr Fjeld » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:31 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: that's priceless Aidan!
Mr Fjeld
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:08 pm

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Deactivated Member » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:24 pm

Aidan wrote:What I want to know is whether or not Do They Know It's Christmas is a hit single, since it's performed by members of a number of different bands.

I'm not sure what your point is. You presumably know that a hit single is a hit single, regardless of who the performers are.

Truth is, the SWA definitions back me up. You can have a single malt. And you can have a single grain. These are two different whiskies. You mix them together and you have a blended whisky. Not a single blend. Not a double blend. Just a blend.
Deactivated Member
 

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby Aidan » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:05 pm

Nick Brown wrote:
Aidan wrote:What I want to know is whether or not Do They Know It's Christmas is a hit single, since it's performed by members of a number of different bands.

I'm not sure what your point is. You presumably know that a hit single is a hit single, regardless of who the performers are.

Truth is, the SWA definitions back me up. You can have a single malt. And you can have a single grain. These are two different whiskies. You mix them together and you have a blended whisky. Not a single blend. Not a double blend. Just a blend.


I was making a joke, rather than a point.

I really don't mind what people call a blend that comes from one distillery.
Aidan
Cask Strength Gold Member
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby lohssanami » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:15 pm

Aidan wrote:
Nick Brown wrote:
Aidan wrote:What I want to know is whether or not Do They Know It's Christmas is a hit single, since it's performed by members of a number of different bands.

I'm not sure what your point is. You presumably know that a hit single is a hit single, regardless of who the performers are.

Truth is, the SWA definitions back me up. You can have a single malt. And you can have a single grain. These are two different whiskies. You mix them together and you have a blended whisky. Not a single blend. Not a double blend. Just a blend.


I was making a joke, rather than a point.

I really don't mind what people call a blend that comes from one distillery.


I think Nick's joke meter is turned off when he is gritting his teeth. :P
User avatar
lohssanami
Double Gold Member
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:17 am
Location: Northern California, USA

Re: Hypothetical Pure Pot Still Question

Postby DavidH » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:38 pm

Nick Brown wrote:I agree that this is a disagreement over semantics - but you have been selective in your quoting. The full quote from the SWA would have been:


That doesn't include my quote at all! Here. As you will see, I quoted the relevant part in full.

No mention of single blends here.


Of course there isn't. We were discussing whether 'single blend' may be defined by analogy with 'single malt'.

I'm not advocating the use of the term and I didn't propose it. You advanced the argument that 'single blend' contains an internal contradiction and it is only this that I disagree with.

I think your point about a column still and an adjacent set of pot stills being regarded as distinct distilleries is a good one. If we accept that, then it would knock 'single blend' on the head. OTOH, this is not the usual definition of 'distillery'. But it would be up to the industry to agree on a definition there; I can't argue it one way or the other.
DavidH
Silver Member
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:55 am
Location: Dublin

Previous

Return to Whisky Chat

Whisky gift and present finder