Richy_1984 wrote:I understand that this whisky is aimed that those who don't normally drink it but posted on here to get an overall impression of why whisky drinkers drink whisky as opposed to say, a pint!
Well, I enjoy both. But the dram is at my left hand and the pint is at my right, so I guess you could say they are opposed.
Richy_1984 wrote:Is it that because it doesn't look like whisky or have you tried it and simply not like the taste?...My lecturer today gave a good analogy of the whisky, if you were to give a pint of what looked like water (but still tasted like a beer) to a beer drinker would they still drink it....Being a Beer drinker myself I would be rather cautious about drinking a pint of beer which looked like water!
This has been done--it's called Zima here in the States, a beer so heavily filtered that it has no color or flavor. (Considering the flavor of the base beer, that's not entirely a bad thing.) It's often drunk with a shot of Chambord or some other fruity liqueur. And, fairly enough, they don't call it beer, partly because it isn't really, but mostly because they are trying to sell it to people who don't want beer. And so it is with this: they are trying to sell it to people who don't want whisky, and in my mind it isn't really whisky, anyway; so they should call it something other than "blended Scotch whisky". Maybe "distilled malt beverage".
The question of appearance is on its face absurd--a beer (or whisky) without color could not possibly what we think of as beer (or whisky). It has been stripped of essential ingredients which happen to have color. And yet, on a subtler level, this is a question we have been talking about for as long as I've been on this forum, and I'm sure far longer. There is a widespread perception that whisky should be dark. It can in fact range from pale white wine color to mahogany, quite naturally--the color (and a significant amount of flavor) comes from the barrels in which it is aged (new-make spirit is as clear as vodka). But many whiskies are color-enhanced with a substance called spirit caramel, which most of us enthusiasts believe can be detrimental to the flavor, if overused (some believe if used at all). Supposedly it is done just to ensure uniformity of color, but there is no doubt that some whiskies, and particularly blends, are colored quite heavily, largely because of the perception in the industry that there is a perception among the public that whisky is supposed to be dark, and the darker it is, the higher quality it is.
So here we are now with a product that stands that logic (flawed as it is) on its head. As I said, I think they ought simply to call it something else, both because it is, and because it's probably better marketing. I'd suggest "malt liquor", but that's already a bogus legal term in the States for overstrength beer.
Anyway, I predict rapid oblivion for this product, like Jackson's Row. I just don't see the point. It has to be a whole lot cheaper just to make vodka in the first place. It's all image and marketing, anyway, so what difference does it make what's actually in the bottle?
But if you can sell this, Richy, then I'd say you can sell refrigerators to the Inuit!
Edit: Going back over the thread, I see that Admiral already touched on the issue of color. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the visual enjoyment of whisky's (or beer's or wine's or anything else's) natural
color. It's kind of like breast implants--they can make you say "wow", but you know they aren't real.