What do you suppose "body" tastes like?
Do I even want to know?
Seems subjective, doesn't it? Isn't my "body" likely to be different from, say, Brad Pitt's? I'm just saying...
Jan wrote:Is Whisky Classified new? I thought it had been published some years ago?
A new edition perhaps ?
That's exactly it; the book was first released in 2002, but this research is for the latest edition, relased May 2006.
Bar Items wrote:What happened to the salt/seaweed/brine classification...??
I still think that Scotch Whisky is going to be somewhat classified by it's region that the single malt comes from.
This classification has been around longer than any of us and has continued through the generations as a system of classifying the 'main' palate of the whisky.
Never against change but when something works and works well....
I'd guess the seaweed profile is part of "medicinal"? Salty, while increasingly used to describe palate, I don't think belongs there. I've certainly tasted malts with tons of salt or brine in the nose, but not as part of the actual flavor. If he's distinguishing between nose and palate when discussing flavor, that may be the cause. Of course, if he's attempting to make a useful distinction between Scotches, I don't see how eliminating the aroma of the malt is helping any. For me, it's over half the difference between whiskies. And I could easily make the case that "smoky" and certainly "floral" are entirely aroma-based as well, so maybe he's off his rocker.
Regardless, I completely disagree with him that regional classifications are increasingly irrelevant. Some are of more use than others, surely. "Highlands" doesn't really tell us anything about the whisky. But "Islay" does. I recently saw an old study looking to find correlation between flavor and region, and it found a strong relationship. Found it! Here:http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky ... /text.html
Anyway, I like the regional classifications, and to be honest part of it is the tradition surrounding it. I doubt they disappear in our lifetimes.
MrTattieHeid wrote:I'm not so sure that the regional classifications have been around all that long. It would be interesting to know when people first started talking about such. ...
The first regional distinction was the division between Highland and Lowland, legally created in 1784 by the Wash Act. As mentioned in the press release, this was a tax-related issue and wasn't created for the purpose of distinguishing types of whiskies from each other. But he implies that all the regions were created for this same reason, which I believe is incorrect. Technically, all whiskies produced north of the line established then from Dundee to Greenock could still be called Highland whiskies, including Islays. All those south of that line could be called Lowland whiskies. I think the other regional designations arose strictly for classifying whiskies by taste. Personally, I'd love to know more about the subject, but literature around here is strictly limited to Michael Jackson and the occasional coffee-table book. I can't even get JM's bible without special-ordering it.