A Steal of a Deal ?!

@paddockjudge I take issue with your characterization of Scotch Noob's post as "Fake News". I think you should have been much more careful with your words and called it what it clearly is: Alternative Facts. None of this is "news".

Get your rubbish reporting names straight please.

Otherwise, I found your accurate facts very informative.

@paddockjudge Thanks. That's exactly the detailed response I was hoping for. I'm in your debt for all I've learned about Canadian whisky since I've been here. Is JP Wiser's 18 a corn and barley whisky then? Davin de Kergommeaux also talks about rye spice in his (much more generous) review of it.

It seems there is a bias against Canadian whisky pretty much everywhere. Even some YouTube reviews from the US and overseas have rated Wiser's Dissertation (for example) in a somewhat lukewarm manner. I wonder how different the reviews would be had Dissertation been tasted blind? I guess it's a positive thing, in a way. We get really good whisky for not a whole lot of money. And I suppose I can't claim the moral high ground either, since I had little to no experience with Canadian whisky before I joined this community.

@Nozinan, point taken. Call me a Luddite! You are correct, I should be much more careful with my words and call it what it clearly is: Alternative Facts.

Here are only a few examples of the many Canadian whiskys that do not have various grains blended together...and some do contain R-Y-E.

@OdysseusUnbound, We've only just begun! Thank you for the kind words, but I've not yet had a chance to take you on a bottle-to-glass tour of Canadian Whisky, and it will take more than one visit...to quote Bowie, "He'd like to come and meet us But he thinks he'd blow our minds....He's told us not to blow it 'Cause he knows it's all worthwhile".

Buckle-up, get ready for a heck of a ride!

@paddockjudge sorry to intrude on your informative posts but not really tried Canadian whisky yet and hearing good things in U.K. About Lot 40. Would it be a good place to start?

@Pete1969 I'm not @paddockjudge but Lot 40 is a fantastic rye whisky. I want to keep a bottle of it in my collection at all times. Just my $0.02

@paddockjudge So what grains make up JP Wiser's 18 YO?

@OdysseusUnbound thanks confirms what I am hearing in U.K. But alternatives are High West Double rye or Rendezvous rye help!! All within £10 of each other so pricing not big influence.

P.S. Just had a dram of JD rye and love it was indifferent to WT81 rye unusual as I love WT.

@Pete1969 I can't speak to those others you've mentioned, but I outlined my thoughts about Lot 40 on my blog. Apologies for the shameless self-promotion.

[blog post here] (ontarioscotchlover.blogspot.ca/2017/07/…)

@Pete1969, Canadian whisky is very different from (single) malted whisky. There is not a lot, or perhaps any barley in some Canadians. Malts derive a great deal of their flavour profile from sherry and peat whereas Canadians primarily derive their character from the oak barrels in which they are matured while some Canadian whiskys derive their character from rye grain and distillation method. When I speak of Canadian whisky I am referring to sipping whisky and not the mixing type that is often cast in an unflattering light.

The Canadian climate makes an excellent environment in which spirit and wood can interact to make incredible flavours. Lot No 40 derives it flavours from selected rye grain, the specific stills used, and new oak barrels. An introduction to Canadian Whisky beginning with Corby's Lot No 40 would be like an initiation into malted whisky beginning with a young Ardbeg or Springbank or Laphroaig. A very good place to begin; however, not a methodical progression that would possibly be Lowlands to Speysides to Highlands to Islays. Rye is to some Canadians as peat is to some malts.

Lot No 40 will give you big flavours. There is batch variation in Lot 40, and that is expected. All batches vary in age, in the 5 to 10 year range, while the cask strength version is approximately 12 years. Most, or all of the batches before 2017 contain some malted rye; the current releases do not.

Don't expect sweetness. Expect flavour - spice from rye and spice from oak.

I hope you enjoy it.

@paddockjudge thanks for the info, like rye, like big flavour and high ABV but don't think the cask strength is available.

@Pete1969, i would be surprised to see the cask strength lot 40 outside of Canada, at least for this batch.

@paddockjudge @Pete1969 I would be surprised to see Lot 40 CS available to most Canadians, given the minuscule quantities expected to be released this fall.

Sigh...

@paddockjudge

Where to start...

First, is it entirely possible that I got a less-than-stellar bottle. That said, if I could buy a bad bottle off of a shelf, then so could any other consumer.

I found it anemic, and I attributed its anemia to its low strength. I generally find that whiskies in the 46% ABV range agree with my palate, while 40% ABV whiskies often taste thin, insubstantial, in a word... anemic. Anyone is welcome to disagree with my opinion.

I did not suggest that all Canadian whisky is aged separately by grain. I said that "blended Canadian whisky" is. This is, perhaps, an overstatement, and I should have said "most". Of course, Lot 40 is not blended, and I did not suggest that it was. Look at your own quote from my review: "It is a BLENDED Canadian whisky, meaning..."

I was not able to find information online saying that Wiser 18 is 100% grain (corn) whisky. The information I found said that it was MOSTLY corn, and that it had no rye in it. Davin de Kergommeaux, to whom I defer on all things Canadian, says on his site that Wiser 18 "contains almost no rye or other flavouring whiskies. No, it is almost entirely corn whisky that has been distilled to high proof (94% + -) then left to mature for eighteen years in well-used ex-bourbon barrels." I'm happy to update my post if you'd like to provide a source that categorizes Wiser 18 as a single-grain.

No matter how long a whisky sits in a barrel, I do not, as a matter of course, allow whisky to air for an hour. That may be your habit, and I commend you on your patience, but I like to review whisky the way that most people drink it: pour it in a glass and then experience it. If I find off flavors or aromas, I will generally note this and then allow the whisky to rest for 10-or-so minutes to see if they dissipate. Anything longer than that is asking too much of the drinker, in my opinion. If a whisky smells of 'glue' for the first hour of its time in the glass, then I say that means it smells of glue, period. For what it's worth, this is something I find infrequently in whiskies that I taste, and in this case, it did indeed dissipate. As noted.

Correct, there is no rye in Wiser 18. Which is why my review states that I found the aroma "suggestive of rye", and that the palate tastes of "Rye bread up front" and "rye grain cinnamon and clove". Just as Davin did in his review, I found that the whisky has elements that taste and smell like rye, so I stated such. The fact that these flavors arise from the wood is interesting, and does not change the fact that I (and Davin) thought they bore a resemblence to that grain.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment. I find that for every whisky I hate, there is someone who loves it, and for every whisky that I love, there is someone who hates it. Such is the nature of the writing of subjective reviews. I would say the attitude displayed above is a tad unnecessary, however.

@ScotchNoob I can't remember you posting on Connosr before. I used to read your blog a while back.

When I want a good shoe I go to a shoemaker, not a baker. I don't buy my bread (rye or otherwise) from my shoe store. One cannot expect someone who has little experience with high quality Canadian whisky to be able to provide a fair assessment of the genre, and with such a small sample size to choose from it's hard to know how helpful such reviews would be.

I didn't see your review but did you state your lack of experience with Canadian whisky in it? I know that in some of my reviews, especially the earlier ones and those where I am critical, I've made it clear that I am not very familiar with the style. If you search "crown royal +nozinan" three examples will come up.

It takes a long time to appreciate the Canadian style. Although I prefer my whisky CS, I'm just now starting to appreciate the lower ABV stuff and what is apparent to me is that there is a lot of complexity and flavour even at lower ABVs compared to malts or bourbon. But it takes a bit of tasting and variety to realize this. I have the benefit of a couple of friends who really like Canadian whiskies and I have tasted with them and received a lot of samples. You may not have that opportunity and though I would not fault you for that I would suggest you be clear about that in your posts. You'd want a surgeon to tell you if it was her first time doing this procedure, wouldn't you?

And speaking of medicine, I have to take exception to your characterizing any Canadian whisky as anaemic. All whiskies should be equally anaemic. If there is blood in my whisky I do not want to drink it.

As far as I'm concerned, Davin, who knows a lot, does not know as much about Canadian whisky as some of the people who frequent this site. I would consider anything @Paddockjudge posts on this site to be factual and well-researched (the difference being he doesn't get bombarded with industry samples). Considering he just spent a day with the Doctor of Canadian Whisky ( I write this as I continue to sip on my dram of the whisky named after his PhD Dissertation) I think he's well-equipped to provide us the information we need.

Thanks for taking the time to write about us up here, but in this day and age it's important to differentiate between fact and ....alternative facts...

Cheers!

@Nozinan

I have not been active on Connosr, but I have had an account for awhile. The site alerted me to the @ mention.

I appreciate your civil and thoughtful response. I would say that my entire site, being a blog, is simply a subjective accounting of my experiences with whisky. I've never felt the need to warn people not to let me do surgery on them, as all I'm doing is presenting my thoughts. As I've said before (elsewhere), mine is a whisky blog, not a medical journal.

I would like, indeed, to "learn to appreciate the Canadian style", although it has been my observation that most of the Canadian whiskies available in the United States do not show the category in the best light. I have been told (although I do not know this for a fact) that most of the best Canadian whisky does not see export.

Also, I'm not sure I fully agree that one must taste widely in a category as a prerequisite to appreciating it. I loved the first single malt scotch I tried, several of the first 10 bourbons, the very first Japanese whisky, the second Indian whisky... and so on. My review of Lot 40 is glowing, and it remains one of my favorite whiskies (out of any category). I've tasted a few Crowns, two Canadian Clubs, a Pendleton, two Wisers, Alberta Dark Batch, Lot 40, and a Forty Creek. Certainly that doesn't warrant me writing a book on Canadian whisky, but I'd like to think that along with several hundred other whiskies from around the world, that at least gives me license to share my opinion on my personal blog.

Cheers!

@ScotchNoob Apologies if my previous post caused a bit of a stir. I found it interesting that @paddockjudge speaks so highly of JP Wiser's 18 and that your experience seemed like a downright awful one. But I suppose that's to be expected with something as volatile as whisky. In fairness to you and @paddockjudge , I think we all have biases. I've found your reviews of various Macallan whiskies far more generous and positive than what my experiences with said distillery reflects. Especially the overpriced and underwhelming 1824 series. Cheers.

Seems to me everyone needs to chill out and have a drink!

@nooch Sadly, I'm working today and while my first patient visit got cancelled I'm still "on the clock".

@paddockjudge , I think the Noob's blog would have been a better place to post your disputes so that everyone who reads that page could see how things shake out.

@ScotchNoob, there is no reason to be apologetic about not liking your bottle of Wiser's 18 yo. You got a shitty bottle of Wiser's 18. I bought a shitty bottle of Wiser's 18 too. I've tasted better from Wiser's 18 than was my bottle, which was horrendous from beginning to end...but because of that first bottle I would never ever consider buying a bottle of Wiser's 18 again.

Wiser's Legacy is a whisky which I love better than 99% of the other whiskies in the world. Wiser's 18 yo is the bottle I have most hated of the 300+ bottles of whisky which I have purchased.

@MadSingleMalt possibly, but the comment about it was made here and he responded to it here for the benefit of that person

@Victor I think it was more of the perceived attitude of the Canadian genre from someone with minimal experience that was the issue.

@Nozinan Agreed, and I would be upset at myself had I stated anything along the lines of "I didn't like Wiser 18 therefore Canadian whisky is bad." I'm pretty certain I didn't disparage the category in any way. In fact, most of the times I talk about Canadian whisky on my blog, I mention how in love I am with Lot 40, and bemoan the fact that we don't get many of the gems south of the border.

@Nozinan Maybe these two gentlemen could sit at a neutral table and share drams from the same bottle of Wisers 18 and report back!

@ScotchNoob Understood, but also understand that something which is not explicitly stated can be implied. Especially when so many of the Canadians you choose to review are low end and would not be considered sipping whiskies in Canada (Wiser 18 being an exception).

If I were to review mostly bottom shelf 3 YO bourbons, bottled at 40% and a single Weller, it would give the impression that I think most bourbons are not great.

You mentioned the fact that tasting a few Canadians and a couple of hundred malts gives you license to put your opinion on your blog. It does not. Paying for your domain gives you the right to put what you want on your blog. But what you put on your blog can have an impact on your credibility, and anyone who questions that credibility can also say so. That's the internet.

@plattvillepeat Or even better, sit them at a table, and have an independent panel pour them each unidentified drams and let them nose and taste and compare notes.

So @ScotchNoob mostly drinks (and reviews) malts, and he gives an occasional opinion on a Canadian. Seems legit to me. And valuable, really: many of us (myself included!) are in a similar position and relate to that perspective.

Is this not a clear parallel to how Serge mostly reviews whisky and gives an occasional opinion on his "malternatives"? That's totally legit and valuable to me in exactly the same way.

@Nozinan , do you question Serge's credibility on rum, for example, because he rags on all the crappy ones that invariably come before his climactic Caroni? If not, why? What's different about what @ScotchNoob is doing?

@MadSingleMalt How many rums has Serge tried? 6-8? no. He does that many in one go. Also, note his site is called "whiskyfun" - I don't go there to decide if I want to buy something.

Nothing wrong with posting an opinion. The problem is that when one develops a reputation as an expert (whether deserved or not), one's actions can have consequences outside one's own personal bubble. Some people (I won't name any currently sitting Presidents) don't care about that. Others take more care given they are in a position of influence.

In the end, it's whisky, not life and death. At least it isn't if we all drink responsibly...

@MadSingleMalt Serge has earned a huge amount of credibility over a long period of collecting, tasting and blogging. @ScotchNoob is, presumably, just that; a relative newbie. He is absolutely entitled to opine on anything he likes. The internet and You Tube make it possible for anyone who thinks they know anything about anything to achieve their 15 minutes of fame. Andy Warhol must be smiling in his grave.

Anyway, I'm not saying that @ScotchNoob doesn't know anything about whisky. I find his blog well written and his reviews quite credible. But if he says he doesn't like Wiser's 18, and if I was contemplating buying it, I would seek out some other opinions. If @Victor, who also has earned a huge amount of credibility here, says essentially the same thing, I'm going to spend my whisky dollars on something else.