how do you do that ?

@nosing Amrut Naarangi.....

@Nozinan ???

@Robert99 In Naarangi do they not put oranges in the barrel?

@Nozinan I just checked it. It seems they put orange peel in the Oloroso wine for the 2 years that will nurture the cask. I didn't know. I am not sure the Scotch would be able to do that.

@Robert99 No, it would not. Luckily Amrut is not bound by the Scotch rules.

@Robert99, I imagine that is a move that you wouldn’t be allowed to talk about under SWA rules, they didn’t even want to let Compass box use inner staves.

This brings up a point I’ve been meaning to discuss on Connosr it relates to an interview with Don Livermore. It was in regards to the Canadian whisky 9% rule his interpretation is that it allows them to add a flavouring component (be it sherry,wine,or other types of spirit) in a set controlled dose. Where as what the Scotch industry does is rather the same thing but using the casks to do the work since they can’t legally add anything to the spirit but can use oak casks of varied origins with an undisclosed amount of previous content sloshing about to achieve the same end?

I have to say I definitely had not thought about it that way before. What do you guys think?

@cricklewood I read today an old article by Serge on Whiskyfun where he was talking about how the Scotch are preventing everybody else from using Scotch, Glen or any other name that could sound like a Scottish name and how, at the same time they are branding there Scotch with name like Barrolo, Yquem, Jerez, Lustau, etc.

So when I said I wasn't sure the Scotch would be allowed to do what Amrut are doing, I was serious. Why? Because they would basically respect all the rules of the SWA. If you thing about it, they would simply use a cask, an unusual one, but still just a cask.

To answer your question, the SWA will never accept a rule like the Canadian one. But they do accept for the wine to be pressure into the wood of the cask previously to it's whisky filling. So my guess is that someone will find a way to input more flavor into the cask to be transfered to the whisky until one day they will produce something like a whisky with a pizza flavor. Then the SWA will come with new rules... Hopefully!

@cricklewood For those who read French, here is the link for the article of Serge. It's from 2006, but it is still interesting.

www.whiskyfun.com/billets.html

I'm not sure if having peel in the sherry prior to the cask being used for Scotch would technically be illegal - certainly, they couldn't add peel once the whisky has gone in. An interesting one.

@cricklewood - Ralfy seems to suggest that this practice goes on and is one of the taboo subjects within the industry. In all seriousness, how would that be regulated? How much bourbon/wine/sherry is too much?

The SWA seem like another British jolly hocky sticks upper class boys club who wish to preserve their reputation for vested interests - not in the interests of the customers, primarily. That is a personal view/perception I hasten to add.

In some ways it makes sense but allowing some flexibility in regard to maturation would, imo, allow Scotch to expand and grow and increase transparency - something we all want, right? It wouldn't necessarily harm the industry and as you point out, whose to know what really goes on re cask content?!

Apologies if that comes across a bit ranty but it just seems silly and unnecessary to me, like many aspects of our beloved establishment

@Robert99 - Just read the article (translated I should add) and it made me smile! Perhaps you see where I get my perception from (see above) . . . ?!

just read the article, I do agree it made me laugh :)

I would like to believe, that The Oak barrels used will often have previously been used to mature American bourbon or Spanish sherry. The bourbon and sherry season the wood and help in the maturation of Scottish whisky by removing some of the harsher and sweeter elements of the cask. Have a great weekend everyone.

@nosing, believe what you want, but it is a fact that few new Barrels are used in the creation of Scottish malts. The "experienced" Barrels obviously originate from somewhere.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is other than to post a picture. Could you please explain your comment.

My point is the taste of the scotch comes from the casks, but not all of the taste as this can come from the warehouse or peat as well just to name a few. I don’t believe that they stuff fruit or Carmel into the casks to add flavor, as the gentleman thought this how it was done. As for the photo I just thought it was different rather than a bottle of Scotch or glass of scotch
Have a great weekend :)

@Robert99, nice articles, I like the flourish which they are written, the final phrase is all that needs to be said...what's mine is mine and what's yours is...also mine! Thanks for sharing

@RianC whisky is a business and like with many others, these bodies will be there to protect the vested interest of their members, especially when one scrutinizes who is on the board of the SWA. I don't think it's a conspiracy, it's just what happens when one goes too far up ones...well you get the picture.

My main thought was more along the lines of the fact of using the casks allows Scottish distilleries the ability to cloak some of their manipulations, whereas the Canadian whisky industry get a bad rap for allowing the very same thing in a somewhat open and legal form. I know, Canadian producers don't necessarily have to tell use what their 9% is either and lord knows we have our share of ambiguous legislation and tricks (take Wiser's 35 (corn with a dollop of rye) and CC40 aging barrels that are constantly re-racked into smaller parcels to stay full)

Ok I'm nattering on.

@nosing _ you are preaching to the choir. Give us a sermon with substance. We know where the flavour comes from _ tell us why.

@paddockjudge Why? Because you've spent years learning where the flavour comes from, that's why.

Are you purposefully missing points here only to argue?

What @Nozinan said about the Amrut Naarangi is ofcourse true. Amrut is boosting wine with orange peel to transfer flavor to the whisky being matured in that cask afterwards. Thery're totally open about it, it's not a secret.

As for the flavor of whisky in general there should be no argument that the peat, for example, influences the flavor. I believe all of us has tasted smoky whisky? As for the cask influence it seems obvious to me that while the cask surely does impart flavor - toasted barrels and so on, there is no reason not to believe that the manufacturers will also keep some of the wine which the barrel previously held when pouring in whisky for maturation. The difference being, as far as I understand, that the Canadians are semi open about this while our beloved SWA pretends that it isn't a thing.

Whether or not Scotch distilleries “add” Sherry directly to their malts seems beside the point. A Sherry-seasoned cask will have Sherry in the staves. This Sherry will eventually be “released” into the whisky, no? It’s not some magical process where the staves have a “memory” of the Sherry they fuse into the whisky. People sh-t on Canadian whisky for allowing the addition of 9.09% of “other” into the whisky, but what percentage of an exclusively Sherry-Matured single malt is “Sherry” (and I use that term loosely)?

@OdysseusUnbound, Ex-bourbon barrels have in excess of two gallons of whiskey trapped in the wood after being dumped, this according to Fred Noe, Master Distiller at Beam.

Fred (son of Booker) knows a thing or two about bourbon. He originally hand-selected the barrels for Knob Creek Single Barrel and was the overseer for the introduction of Jim Beam Rye. He also oversaw the creation of Devil's Cut which uses a proprietary method for the increased extraction of bourbon (trapped inside the wooden staves) from dumped barrels. I recall reading an interview where Fred was asked if this process would make the barrels less valuable to scotch makers, wherein he replied, "fuck the scotch makers".

Chuck Cowdry has a good piece on this subject. chuckcowdery.blogspot.ca/2011/02/…

@Alexsweden, you raise some interesting points, all of which spark my interest in this subject. Let's not forget the influence of yeast and also the one factor that is most often overlooked, the style of still and how it is utilised.

@nosing, do you have any pictures of stills?

Of course @OdysseusUnbound, the wood surely absorbs the wine which then gets infused in the whisky but I'm sure there's some sloshing about in there aswell

@Alexsweden It depends. In the case of wet casks I can imagine there might be some sloshing. However, some casks are disassembled and rebuilt in Scottish cooperages. I would not expect any sloshing in those cases.

@Alexsweden My point was that Canadian whisky makers take criticism for adding Sherry to their whisky, when “sherried” scotch does the same thing, albeit indirectly.

@cricklewood - ' . . . using the casks allows Scottish distilleries the ability to cloak some of their manipulations . . .'

Yes! I agree with your point and see why Canadians feel aggrieved about this practice (@Odysseus) . I don't think there's any conspiracy but the SWA (and organisations like them) are able to flex their muscles in a very self-serving way that smaller businesses can't. I'm not angry about it per se but it's one of those things about British culture that peeves somewhat.

That being said, I would bet in practice not as much thought is given to the casks at most distilleries as we may like to imagine i.e. 'get em all filled lads and we'll sort them out in ten years!'. Maybe not though . . . who knows?

@RianC It’s also a practice that’s not nearly as common as people think with Canadian whisky. Distillers who do it, like Alberta Distillers with their Dark Horse/Batch offering, are quite upfront about it.

@OdysseusUnbound - I suppose my view is so long as what's in the glass is good I'm not that bothered how it got there.

However, like many I suspect, what I find irritating about Scotch is the way they play the rules to suit themselves e.g. the NAS debacle, sorry I mean debate, and issues around transparency.

'No age doesn't matter!'

'Oh well a 25 year old should be quite reasonably priced then?'

' . . . .er . . . where's that marketing fella?'

@RianC Yup. It’s “hey, look over there!” marketing with a bunch of these scotch producers. NAS isn’t cheaper because age doesn’t matter, but a 25 Year Old whisky is expensive because age matters. Maybe a new distillery, named Orwell Distillers will pop up in the new year. Doubleplus good.

@OdysseusUnbound yes, and that's both stupid and silly that "Canadian whisky makers take criticism for adding Sherry to their whisky, when “sherried” scotch does the same thing, albeit indirectly.".

SWA "protecting" their product? I do suppose they do more stupid stuff than just ban unorthodox practices by independents...

@paddockjudge yeast should be talked about way more! It's the same regarding beer, different strains of yeast yields different results in the finished product. But I would venture to guess that most of the big boys just might be using some industrial high-yield variety on grounds of cost efficiency rather than than taste...

@Alexsweden you are right on the money when it comes to yeast. Although most distillers purchase their yeast from suppliers, some have proprietary strains for specific use; Four Roses with their five strains and Beam when fermenting the mash for Baker's. The mash doesn't get past 12% without a boost...and that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Some distillers have managed to get 15% abv yield from their mash.