Is it all in the mind?

A black felt pen—the best-ever use of $1.99 from the whisky piggy bank!

I have no doubt that there are many factors besides smell and taste that affect our enjoyment of whisky. Cost, Labelling around Colour, chill filtration, CS vs not, etc...

But it's not absolute. I prefer many, many malts and even blends that cost less than $100 to Johnnie walker Blue.

I was shocked at my enjoyment of some 43% scotches over the last year and a half, but there are still some I don't like.

I think the more one becomes truly educated, the more you can see past marketing fluff, but I don't have 100% confidence I wouldn't be fooled.

This explains all the Macallan Shills

Good topic and that video is interesting although I think they should have just used the same wine to better illustrate their point.

I believe this is why blind tasting is such a great equalizer, it allows you to remove a lot these variables and focus on whether or not you enjoy what you are tasting and why. I think the article by the L.A. Whisky Society (LAWS) about Black Bowmore has been posted here before it reaches many of the same conclusions.

This touches a similar veing to the "it's good for the price" debate @Nozinan has brought that up before.

I do not know if this is relavent to this discussion but, I ran across this article which www.whiskyanalysis.com references as a link. It is a long article. I have yet to fully digest it but, it is an interesting read. It's approach is empirical and science based.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/…

I saw somewhere, can't remember where, that a group of wine tasters where given blind tastings and clear bottle markings. And only in the blinds did the issue of cost and brand make a difference. With labels in full view they made a big deal about the brands that were supposed to be the best.

Whisky talk is great. Whisky enthusiasm is great. The downside of whisky-talk and whisky-enthusiasm is in individuals convincing themselves that talk, reputation, and the opinions of others can substitute for the experience of tasting each and every whisk(e)y for oneself. There is no substitute for experience. There never has been and there never will be.

If anything I am tougher on highly reputed or highly priced whiskies than I am on inexpensive ones. Why? Because the madness of passively following any crowd is never a good idea, and an expensive whisky has much to prove to me that it is worth the asking price.

For me finding something I love for $ 30 is far more satisfying than is paying $ 500 for something I love a similar amount that lots of other people admire too. I would rather be alone with some inexpensive drink I enjoy than $ 500 poorer accepting the congratulations of others on my good taste. I am not seeking ratification of my taste by others. I am seeking pleasing of my taste for myself.

@Victor I wonder though if it works the other way. For instance, OGD 114 is a great bourbon. But is it as good as I think it is, or does it seem better because it's so good at such a low price?

@Nozinan I cannot answer for how you make your evaluations.

As for me, I became a big fan of Old Grand-Dad 114 back in the days (2008) when I had rarely paid more than $ 30 for a bottle of anything. Knowing that I liked that one a lot at a cost of $ 23 meant that a $ 60 bottle had a large burden to overcome to become desirable in comparison.

I can love an inexpensive whisky as much as an expensive one. Wait; retract that statement. Instead, I can love an inexpensive whisky more than an expensive one, as I can replenish that pleasurable spirit more frequently (prolonging the enjoyment), and share more freely and with a heavier hand than with the more costly spirit. A win-win opportunity.

I do like these sorts of 'experiments' but being a psychology graduate I can't help casting a critical eye over them. It would be interesting to see results if these were carried out in isolation rather than in a busy room (and with cameras on participants) i.e I'd wager that social expectations are a large factor in our choices in such situations. I mean, it would take a relatively secure and strong character (contrary types notwithstanding) to say 'I prefer the cheapo one . .' in such a set up lol

Apart from a 40+ year grain whisky which was amazing, most 20+ year whiskys I've tried (and it's not that many to be fair) have been a bit of a let down and I'd be very wary of paying current prices for anything in such an age category as it stands. The phrase 'being bent over and . . .' springs to mind.

I echo @cherylnifer, @Victor and other comments above in that finding a gem at a low price is like winning the whisky lottery and the aim of the game for me.

Someone should let the whisky marketeers have a look at this though . . . oh, hang on

@Wierdo - Are you an Iain Banks fan? I love his sci-fi stuff but have read more of his fiction over the last few years. I really enjoy his dark, satirical style.

Not read his whisky book yet but did read a review saying he was basically paid to travel Scotland in his sports car(s) and visit distillery after distillery and then write about it . . . I'm not sure whether to be insanely jealous or in awe at his good fortune

@Wierdo ha ha I love that little anecdote from the book. Maybe I need to start storing my whisky in empty 'high priced' bottles so I enjoy it more. I know many say they just appreciate each whisky based on its merits regardless of price - but I'm not convinced it's that easy. I feel pretty stoked when I find a bottle I like for a good (cheap) price i.e. good VFM. However, something expensive I really want to enjoy and I'm sure my brain helps subversively with that too. No simple answers except drink what you enjoy (and can reasonably afford).

@Hewie - Yeah I reckon it goes both ways, as in I'll get a lot of extra pleasure if a whisky is really good and it's (relatively) cheap; but expectations are raised as the price goes up and so I think it's got a harder job to convince me it's worth it.

As pointed out above re @Nozinan 's point - price, from a review/enjoyment point of view, shouldn't factor but I think it's nigh on impossible for it not to, whichever way.

@RianC I've not read a lot of Iain Banks. I read a few of his early books years ago (the wasp factory) being one of them. I enjoyed them. Not read any of his sci-fi stuff. I read his whisky book and enjoyed it a lot. It's as much about driving different cars on Scottish roads as it is about whisky. But yes he was a lucky sod to land that gig!

I think it was written about 10 years ago and it's amazing how much the scotch whisky industry has changed in that time.

I’m not sure whether I’m a contrarian or not, but I rated my last bottle of Ballantine’s Finest 87, the same rating I gave Glenlivet 18. Am I nuts? I stand by my ratings, despite the $120 price difference. I also do my best not to read anything about whiskies I’m given as samples. I awarded the “mystery” whisky @Nozinan gave me a 92 based on my senses alone. Heck a part of me really thought it was a Macallan, a brand against which I have a strong negative bias, but I still awarded it the score I felt it deserved. Lucky for my pride that it turned out to be a 5 Year Old Cask Strength Single Cask offering from Amrut.

@OdysseusUnbound, why would you doubt yourself? Who's to tell you what things should taste like to you but you? Jim Murray rated Ballantine's Finest at 96 points and The Glenlivet 18 yo at 91 points. By Jim's standards you were way too hard on Ballantine's Finest.

Resisting social pressure is a necessary part of personal integrity with respect to whisky taste. That is why I make a point of saying that while I more often do not like Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 at all, that there have been samples from some batches that I did like. Fair is fair. People want simple and absolute answers. Real life is far more complicated.

@Victor I don’t doubt my tastes, but I know that there are things other than sensory input that affect our perceptions. If I drink a new Laphroaig expression knowing it’s Laphroaig, there’s a chance I’ll rate it higher than if I had tasted the same whisky blind. I’m sure I’d like this hypothetical whisky either way because I’m a fan of Laphroaig, but expectations do affect us.

I may have mentioned it before, but there was an episode of WhiskyCast wherein 3 Islays were tasted blind, and Davin DeK scored Lagavulin 8 lower (though still very favourably) when tasted blind than he had scored it when he knew its identity. Even he was surprised saying something along the lines of “I can’t believe I didn’t recognize it. I have about 5 bottles of this stuff at home.”

And while it’s not my favourite, I’ve never disliked a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.

Of course, the best mind trick is when you see a whisky that's expensive and supposedly great (such as a CS Caol Ila or Macallan CS) and you get it for a steal.

I picked up Mac CS (mostly for another person) for $73 when it was selling for 125 GBP

I was, thanks to @Astroke able to get a CS Caol Ila 18 YO for just over $100 due to what was likely a pricing error.

When opened, those will taste extra great.

@OdysseusUnbound, Davin de Kergommeaux influenced by knowing the identity of the whisky he was about to drink? NO! Talk about laughing out loud! For those Non-Canadian Connosrs out there, Davin de K might as well be the Diageo's marketing department equivalent for all Canadian whisky. There is not one word about whisky which Davin de K writes or speaks which I would not take with 20 grains of salt.

Everyone who has met him says that Davin de K is a great guy. I imagine that he is. I just wouldn't believe anything he says about whisky.

You are a lucky man to be able to enjoy all of the Jack Daniel's you encounter.

@Victor Except on that particular podcast, he was talking Single Malt scotch and scored Lagavulin lower blind than he did when he knew its identity. It would be interesting to get Davin to do a blind tasting of blended Canadian/American/Irish/Scotch whiskies and see if the phenomenon was the same. I like Davin. I’ve spoken to him via Facebook messenger a few times. While our tastes are very different, he’s a pretty knowledgeable guy. But I have to agree that Davin never seems to say anything bad about any Canadian whisky.

I was asked once if I could tell what whisky I liked better. I went through the entire circuit (nosing, looking at the clarity, swirling, tasting, etc. There were 3 to taste. They were all the same whisky. The only difference! They were put into the glass at different times (60, 30, 15 minutes). My host was a chemist and he was convinced that the properties (molecules) of whisky changed depending on how long it was exposed to air. For the record, I chose the one that was poured at 60 minutes. I did tell him that I noticed a difference of the three. So, based on that experiment, possibly I could tell the difference between a 40 year and 10 year. The downside! I don't think I'm willing to spend 500+ to find out.

@PeterG7, well I suppose the upside is that you don't have to spend $500. You only have to spend 60 minutes. :)

@MadSingleMalt That is true! Time drinking whisky is almost never wasted.

@PeterG7 that's an interesting twist on a tasting. My only thoughts are that just as some bottles improve with time after opening (air exposure), others actually decline in quality. Likewise, some whisky does improve in the glass, and others seem to go flatten off. It all depends on the indivisual whisky - and so there are no hard and fast rules - just lots of experimentation to do! Enjoy the journey.

Another example of "all in the mind," experience is to watchyour favorite youtube reviewers and drink the same whisky they are reviewing and see if their commentary influences you. I remember watching Ralfy and the Scotch Test Dummies (STDs) and having what they were nosing and tasting influence me. I would think to myself, I don't remember getting many of what they get until now. The power of suggestion, I guess. This also happens when someone hosts a tasting, and suggest aromas or tastes to people, and you end up convincing people that is what they should be experiencing.

@ajjarrett The first bottle of single malt I opened was a Macallan 25. It was a gift, and my uncle liked it so I opened it for him. I have very few memories of that, some from the later tastings in 2011. I believe @Victor had the last ounce or 1/2 ounce of that bottle.

In 2010 I opened a bottle of Glen Breton (long story, best shared over a dram but the synopsis is in my review), and actually nosed and tasted it WHILE watching Ralfy. I felt so inadequate... I could not taste any of that....

@Nozinan My first two experiences of the power of suggestion was with Ralfy, with the Bruichladdich Laddie Ten and Bunnahabhain 12yo. Two very enjoyable and extremely different drams. I didn't all what Ralfy was getting, but getting some was enough for me to fall in love with the two. Sadly, the Laddie Ten (first edition) is no longer available, cry. I don't think there can be another Ralfy who can get 20, 30 or 40 nosing/tasting notes, but then again, that's alright with me.

@ajjarrett Anytime I have had a new whisky that Ralfy has reviewed I have tried to taste while watching Ralfy. In the past. Now, because I want to do my own reviews, I prefer to wait until after to watch or read other reviews. And there are times when I get things I didn't before because someone mentions it. Part of that is because sometimes I smell or taste things but cannot put a name to it.

But turnabout is fair play. I'm sure that few people would have described Lambertus with the infected diabetic foot ulcer notes (definitely polymicrobial)...

I gave a friend a sample of Ben Riach 10. He came back to me and said he got a definite liquorice note on the finish. I'd not picked that up at all. But the next pour I had of it I noticed it straight away!