You used to be able to get a bottle for a mere $38,000, but it's all sold out now.
Posted on 07/25/2011 10:38:33 AM PDT by Red Badger
Methods for distinguishing between authentic and counterfeit Scotch whisky brands have been devised by scientists at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.
Researchers from the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry have found new ways to compare the content of whisky samples to determine if they are the whisky on the label or an imitation brand.
A series of blind tests successfully put the real whisky brand and the fakes in the right categories. The system could enhance the technology industry uses to tackle the trade in illicit whisky, which costs huge sums in lost revenue and threatens brand reputation.
Professor David Littlejohn, who led the research, said: "The whisky industry has tools at its disposal for telling authentic and counterfeit whisky brands apart but many of them involve lab-based analysis, which isn't always the most convenient system if a sample needs to be identified quickly.
"There's a growing need for methods that can provide simpler and faster identification and we have developed a system which could be adapted for devices to use on site, without the need to return samples to a lab. It could be of great benefit to an industry which is hugely important to the economy."
The researchers analysed 17 samples of blended whisky, looking at the concentration of ethanol in the samples without diluting them and the residue of dried whisky. They did so with mid-infrared spectrometry, used with immersion probes that incorporate novel optical fibres developed by Scottish based company Fibre Photonics Ltd, who co-sponsored the research. The procedures developed can provide prompt, accurate analysis without the complexity and cost of some other systems.
The levels of ethanol and colourant led them to identify correctly the eight authentic and nine counterfeit samples.
The project research paper has been published in Analytica Chimica Acta.
Oh, indeed. "Old Overholt" rye whiskey is still around. Owned by one of the big distilling conglomerates I'm sure. I think Hemingway referred to it as "Old Overcoat" or some such.
The funny part about the Old Crow product is the "Reserve" labeling. As if letting that stuff sit in the barrel for an extra month or two is really going to improve it. ;-)
Laphroig tastes like a burning hospital would smell - but in a good way!
"Bartender! Give me some fresh scotch!"
If you knew anything about Scotland’s history, you’d know of the historical animosity against the Catholic church there.
I can afford better whisky than Dewar’s blended nonsense. I drink only genuine single malt, and when I can obtain it, I get it at cask strength.
You used to be able to get a bottle for a mere $38,000, but it's all sold out now.
Excellent choice.
Go in peace, FRiend.
Old Crow is one of the best whiskeys around for the money. Jack Daniels tastes like turpentine mixed with quinine and it’s supposed to be a premium whiskey
A popular opinion, to be sure. There are very high-quality whiskies coming onto the market, both blends (malt and grain whiskies) and vatted/pure malts (multiple single malts combined for effect). Compass Box is one such independnet bottler that specializes in this. I'd opt for a bottle of their "Spice Tree" over JW Black any day.
There can be such a thing as “aging scotch too long.”
Among single malt drinkers, there is some agreement that keeping it a barrel for more than, oh, 15 to 18 years doesn’t impart anything good to the flavor, and can actually be detrimental to the flavor.
Depending on the barrels and whisky in question, anywhere between eight and 15 years yields the best results.
What isn’t commonly known among whisky drinkers is that many of the casks the whisky is aged in are American oak barrels, formerly used for bourbon.
My uncle always kept a bottle of Old Crow in the pantry. It definitely had more flavor than Old No. 7 (which I really don’t care for at all), but I recall it being fairly harsh. The recent repackaging in those flexible plastic bottles hasn’t really led me to think that it may have improved, either. I concede that I may be mistaken.
One other thing - only people who haven’t tasted many whiskies would mistake Jack Daniel’s basic offering as anything “premium”. Shows you what the power of marketing can do.
I’ll have to give it a look.
To my tongue, the Dewar’s stuff just lacks any of the regional character I really like in malt whisky. I’m not saying that good malt whisky has to have some pronounced character like the heavy peat smoke of the Islays or something similar that just smacks you across the face with how unique it is. It’s just that the whole blending deal seems to try to remove any identifiable regional character and create a “budweiser” effect of year-after-year consistent same-ness that just... I dunno.... it’s bothersome.
If I wanted boring uniformity, I’d drink vodka I guess.
I’ve had many good grain whiskeys from here in North America, so I’m not “grain whiskey shall never pass my lips” snob. I just don’t like supporting mass mediocrity as a business plan, and that’s what so many of these blends come off as to me.
I’m in complete agreement there.
If you ever feel like splurging on something really unique, look at the Compass Box “Hedonism”. It’s a blend of scottish “grain” whiskies, aged separately and then combined. Not a drop of barley-based liquor in it.
I test for quality and originality a couple times a week. Funny, but my usual outcome is “Yeah, that’s pretty darned good”...
Yes, it's harsh but less so than Jack Daniels at half the price.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.