"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Wednesday 19 January 2011

The Question Of The Hour

I am attempting to do something for the first time. It is a timid effort because I am not at all secure.

christopher watts has left a new comment on your post "This Morning":

in regards to the whiskey does anyone else think that it's a complete waste to unearth such a treasure to test it and then put it back. What is the point of that?

*********

Robert the Bruce has left a new comment on your post "The Question Of The Hour":

I makes no sense to put it back other than good press for Whyte and MacKay.

I would not be too excited that it's 100 years old however. The "aging" of this wonderful beverage occurs in the wooden barrels before they are put in bottles. Once in the glass bottle, it does not "age" any more. If nothing else, it's a really old bottle of 15 year old malt.


We are only a week away from Robbie Burns Day! Make sure you have a dram or two on the 25th.

******

christopher watts has left a new comment on your post "The Question Of The Hour":

I agree that because of its container it would not have continued to age but that's hardly the point.

When you can get Whiskey in a can ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347824/Scottish-whisky-way-South-Americans-like-.html ) the excitement here is obviously because of its age.

Whiskey made 15 yrs ago will taste nothing like that of 115 years ago. The process has evolved and the ingredients are different.

I agree about the P.R. but the discovery gives Whyte and MacKay, putting it back doesn't make any sense.

This is of course the complete opposite of discovering the corpse of some tyrannical Scottish King and deciding to wear him like a technicolor dream coat while prancing through the interwebs.

IMO Whyte and MacKay should just keep it on their premises in a climate controlled environment for further testing/consumption or for show purposes.

The real Robert the Bruce on the other hand should lie buried in the ground. If nothing else he's just a really old relic of 12th century thinking.

**************

I think the whiskey should be shared. With limited company. It should be sipped. After the first one that knocks your head back, it should be slowly savoured with appreciative glances exchanged all the while. Talk would not be required. It would be better enjoyed in front of a fire,in a big comfortable chair that wraps around, in a room fill with the smell of wood burning, rain driving against the windows and the fire crackling in the hearth.

It should be treated with all reverence for its antiquity. The lights should be turned down low, a glow from the fire with occasional flames flickering.

A journal should be kept of the occasions. It should always be winter when the skies are grey all day. The place should be near the sea so the howling wind outside makes warmth and comfort and company and whiskey that much more realised.

The whiskey should be brought out when all the stars are aligned. It should not be for a wedding or a birthday or any of those trivial occasions. When there's a death now, would be a good time to remember all the good things in life. After imbibing,there should be no journey home. It should be enjoyed at home. And the only place to go after, a large comfortable bed with a firm but soft mattress. big puffy pillows and a down feather duvet billowing around,like sleeping in a cloud.

Aye, Ye ken, That Arab that owns the distillery and a plane, that flew the Scotch back to a science lab to be tested and back again for heritage-keeping,has no appreciation at all for the finer things in life.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's a good thing you are not the Chair. Otherwise there would be no democracy, only a dictatorship.

Reminds me of the other dictator, John West yelling at a member of the public that they had no business addressing the council.

Tail wagging the dog.

Robert the Bruce said...

Mr Watts, who has an incredible appetite for slagging me and thinks that he is an expert of all things - as long as he has a link to Wikipedia to fall back on said...

"Whiskey made 15 yrs ago will taste nothing like that of 115 years ago. The process has evolved and the ingredients are different."

To that sir, I say HORSE HOCKEY!!

One of the traditions of this beverage is that it is made today like it was hundreds of years ago! A good single malt made 100 years ago and stored properly in a bottle should taste the same as a bottle you buy in the LCBO today. The difference is the evaporation that occurs (the angels' share) with a cork sealed bottle.

As far as ingredients are concerned sir, we are talking about water, malted grain, and yeast. The peat used in the Islay distillers to dry the malted barley is harvested from the same bogs as they were hundreds of years ago.

The process has not evolved AT ALL! The pot stills used today are fashioned on the same equipment used 200+ years ago.

The only thing that is changed now is the fact that all of the small distilleries are now owned by a small number of large corporations (ie. Whyte and MacKay).

As you like to say Mr. Watts, W T F ???

The more you post, the more you are starting to sound like the Aurora's answer to Cliff Claven. I think your mantra is "Baffle them with BS".

Fuimus

christopher watts said...

I don't think nor do I claim to be an expert of all things as you claim.

I did not reference Wikipedia. You did. Maybe that's where you find the rules for Horse Hockey, whatever that is.

If you believe that whiskey made 15 years ago tastes like that made 115 years ago you would be wrong. I think the testing and tasting of what was recently unearthed will confirm.

It doesn't matter how distilleries try to uphold old practices they use updated technologies and ingredients. Harvesting from the same bog doesn't mean that the contents of that bog are the same.

The fact that small distilleries are owned by large corporations does change the game.

So yeah, WTF?

The more you post the more you sound like Aurora's answer to Woody. Someone who is baffled by their own BS.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Why, oh why, do people try to take on Mr. Watts in a battle of printed words. They cannae win!

Anonymous said...

Watts knows not what he speaks on this subject. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006020304959

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_whiskey_age_in_a_bottle

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sealed_whiskey_go_bad_after_time

"Does sealed whiskey go bad after time?

It really depends on how it was kept, which method it was sealed, the age of it, so forth. Whiskey fortunately (or unfortunately...) does not age in a bottle. For example, if a properly sealed bottle produced in the 30's was opened today, it would look and taste exactly the same way it did when it was sealed. So, if you happen to have a properly sealed bottle; no evaporation, tax seal intact and unsevered, and no debris in the bottle, it should be fine to consume. "

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/61059

http://www.whisky.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9375

http://www.morrisonbowmore.co.uk/faq.aspx#8

DOES SCOTCH WHISKY AGE OR IMPROVE IN A BOTTLE WHICH IS KEPT SEALED?
No. The spirit matures in the casks after distillation. There is no change in a whisky once it has been bottled and securely sealed. As oxygen in the air cannot get to the whisky, there is no further maturing. Therefore if you buy a bottle of Bowmore 12 Years Old in 2001, it will not be 13 Years Old in 2002.


http://www.lochlomonddistillery.com/making-scotch.htm

The Scotch Whisky production process has changed little in the last two hundred years, Scotch is still produced using traditional methods although modern production and quality control are now used to ensure that the quality of the finished product has never been better.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Watts,

What "updated ingredients" do they use to make whisky today?

Do they sweep the malting floor with special "swiffer" brooms instead of the traditional corn brooms when they dry out the barley?

What is your education on the production of single malt scotch anyways? What makes you the authority and why can't you admit wen you're wrong?

Robert the Bruce said...

I am sure that there will be another anti-RtB blog entry at the "Temporary Sanity" blog. But, he has a hate on for me - why not add fuel to that fire.

Just to put this to rest with the scotch expert Mr Watts. I cannot put any validity in anything that you have said on this subject simply by the fact you cannot spell the word correctly.

W H I S K E Y.... the spelling that you have used. Is correct if you are talking about bourbon or Irish whiskey.

W H I S K Y.... is the correct spelling for the products of Canada and Scotland.

Look that up in your precious Wikipedia.

By the way (or BTW in Watt-speak), my high-school aged child is still told NOT to use WikiPedia as it is not a credible resource. As you like to quote it often, I thought that you would like to know.

Fuimus

One who Knows said...

Tis a wonderful day when the bloggers go to fighten over a jar , Certainly beats the hell out of all those other posts we had to bare leading up to last October 25th. I still say you need to give up politics and publish your memoires, you leave your readers wanting for more