Chill filtration...

[RufusA]

...that old perennial topic.

Going back through my notes from WL (it's amazing how the handwriting evolves throughout the day) I've written two seeming contradictary things about Chill filtering.

Obviously the conceived wisdom of connoisseurs is that chill filtering is a "bad thing" - born out of trying to improve appearance of chilled/diluted whisky and strips out some of the flavour in the process.

In my notes I have reference to the colour and odour of the filter pads after a chill filtering process - proof if ever needed that chill filtering is the devils work!

However on doing a very informative vertical tasting of Old Pulteney with one of their master blenders (sorry didn't make a note of the name) he stated that in a blind taste testing of CF and non-CF whisky of comparable vintage the leading expert (didn't make a note of name again - but possibly MJ) couldn't taste any discernable difference. I stupidly didn't probe him on the scope of this test - was it limited to Old Pulteney, were they from the same casks etc, as he was about to pour the 17YO!

Now to my uneducated palette, non-CF whisky is usually richer / fuller / better. BUT for most familiar distilleries the non-CF expressions are those which tend to be at cask strength from premium / older casks. So the majority of the difference I'm tasting could be attributable to the age / finish.

Does anyone know what test "Old Pulteney" could have been referring to, or has anyone got a reference to a blind taste tend carried out by a whisky "expert" which proves conclusively what Chill Filtering has stripped out.

Rufus.

[scotch4ever]

Rufus,
You stated that the Chill Filtered(CF) and Un-chill filtered (NCF) where tested agasint each other. My question just like you is at what proof? I the brands were presented at different % of alcohol than it was not real comparision in my opinion.

The idea of "experts" is laughable. The only expert that matters is the one either drinking or making it. If Pultney believes there product tastes better at 40% and chill filtered than why such a fuss? I imagine its such a fuss due to Independant distilleries and bottlers providing the opposite opinion in the market place.

I enjoy drinking Pultney and have not yet had a chance for UNF version, however, now I am curious to find one. Any leads on who has a IB bottling?

Cheers,

[karlejnar]

I enjoy drinking Pultney and have not yet had a chance for UNF version, however, now I am curious to find one. Any leads on who has a IB bottling?

Sorry dunno any IB at the moment, but their own 17yo is non-chill-filtered and bottled at 46% abv.

[azazel]

Rufus,
I enjoy drinking Pultney and have not yet had a chance for UNF version, however, now I am curious to find one. Any leads on who has a IB bottling?

You should be able to track one down thru any of the Cadenhead's shops.

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed your location. Maybe you have a friend in the UK who could get one from Cadenhead's for you and send it out

[Deactivated Member]

Stay away from the G&M Cask Old Pulteney, 15yo, 59%, from sherry cask(s). I like OP, and the G&M Cask line has served me well, but this one was unpleasant.

[Wave]

The Pulteney 16 year old Whisky Galore bottling @ 46% alc (UCF) is very good IMO. Signatory and Scott's Selection also have cask strengths available here in the US.


Cheers!