Let's talk about blends.

@BlueNote, yes, you are absolutely right, there is a need to have the Discussion topic have the name 'blends' in it for later reference. This is the topic that I wanted to start up myself, but jumped the gun a bit by putting it on the Jim Murray page, after @AboutChoice lured me out of the closet with my ideas on blends by requesting clarification from me after I posed a provocative question. I hate to disappoint @AboutChoice.

I did express in the Jim Murray discussion a lot of my feeling about blends. I have no intrinsic prejudice against them, and very much like to have the experience of sampling them for myself to see which of them I enjoy. What has irked me is that apparently a lot of people look down on blends as a group, but give no coherent reasons what it is about them that they do not like. I have expressed what it is that I do not care for in a lot of blends: I consider wheat flavours of the grain whiskies to clash with the flavours of both peat and/or wine. This is a general sort of preference, and there are a lot of blends that I think are terrific, some of which are quite inexpensive and generally available, such as Grant's Family Reserve, JW Black, Black Grouse, and Clan MacGregor. More expensive blends which I think are great include Ballantine's 17, and Johnnie Walker Blue and Gold. (Yes, JW Blue is expensive, but I will be tickled and delighted to receive a free dram of it.)

I cannot speak from my own experience about how much various whiskies, blended, single malt, or other styles, have varied over the decades because I was not an active consumer of those products during those decades, and do not now have access to stocks of the older origin bottles. I do know that everyone whom I know who seems to know anything about any kind of whisk(e)y will tell you that the evolution in flavours over a period of decades of any style or national origin of whisk(e)y has tended to be very great.

So, @BlueNote, I welcome the discussion, which I hope is just beginning.

Good to get your perspective @Victor. The Ballantines 17 is an excellent blend rivalling many single malts and just about as expensive. I don't know that I would agree with JM that it is worth 97 points and world whisky of the year, but it is very good. I wish blends like Blue Hanger and some of the older Cutty Sarks were available here. There seem to be tons more high end blends available in UK.

I drank blended Scotch for many years before discovering single malts, and I'm rather lost in single-malt serendipity at this time. I may not be going about things in a proper or useful manner, but I somehow feel obligated to educate myself in the malts before trying some of the better blends. Last night, I wrote a review based on my old bottle of Johnnie Walker Gold (which I like, with reservations), but I'm not yet sophisticated enough to detect the various malts used in a blend. But I'm getting there.

Like @Victor, I would like to sample some JW Blue (see my review of JW Green for my one-and-only experience with it), but if my budget ever allows for me to spring for some "iffy" expensive whisky, there's one at the local store that intrigues me more: J&B Ultima. Their lone bottle must have been sitting on the shelf for some time (Ultima was discontinued in 2001), but at $120, it's considerably cheaper than JW Blue, and, from what little I've heard, compares in quality to the Blue. Anyone try this one?

Nothing wrong with blends, i recently got a bottle of bailie nicol jarvie and its an awesome scotch at a budget price. I also enjoy grants family reserve,dimple 15yo, dewers 12yo jw red/black/green, haven't tried the gold yet but my father-in-law has a bottle he will be opening when my baby is born in October and the only time i had the blue label i didn't know how to appreciate it and mixed it with coke.

Just like with single malts there are so many to try but most are a more enjoyable price where you can get 2 blends for the price of one malt so i am always more likely to buy more blends then malts.

@Donski, I've got a bottle of Bailie Nicol Jarvie awaiting me in the hands of a relative 40 clicks from here. BNJ might just be harder to find it gotten into the USA than to find it in Australia.

One more blend I want to mention that I like a lot: Famous Grouse Gold Reserve 12 yo. There are too many good blends to mention, really, stuff like Black Bottle, Sheep Dip, etc., and those are just the "standard blends", mostly. We could just as well have a Blended Scotch, or "blended malt and grain whisky" club, there are so many of them. BUT, blend-lovers, take a look at how few Connosr reviews have been posted on blends. That should tell you a lot.

One of my favorite blogs these days, is Ralfy's. whiskyreviews.blogspot.com

I like watching his vlog reviews (video-blogs), because he's very open minded to all types of whiskies. He seems to like blends as much as single malts. While I don't always agree with his reviews, we seem to have similar palates. Several of his blend reviews have opened my eyes to a type of Scotch I had previously abandoned. Since then, I've returned to trying out blends on occasion. Especially when I'm in the mood for something new, and/or my budget is limited. Black & White, while nothing special, is tasty and fresh, and a bargain here in the U.S.! Johnnie Walker Green Label, and Spencerfield Spirts Sheep Dip are stunningly good blended malts! Spencerfield Spirts Pig's Nose, and Ian Macleod's Isle of Skye 8 and 12 year old offerings are malt heavy blends that are very good and very affordable. Are they better than single malts? No, but they aren't worse either! Just different. Just something else to explore.

@MacBaker62. You summed it up very nicely in your last couple of sentences.

I've had some REALLY good blends before, Chivas 25 year old, Johnnie Walker Black and Green and the times I've had Johnnie Walker Red haven't been bad although I've talked to many people who have had many bad experiences with that one. And one of my favorites which is a vatted whisky, Sheeps Dip Old Hebridean 1990 is absolutely brilliant. The Shackleton's Replica isn't half bad, but at $200 it should have been better.

My brother in law is a great guy and loves his whiskies, but I've seen him turn his nose up on whiskies when he found out they were blends.

The only negative thing I have to say about so many blends that I've had is the abv. Almost every one of them I've had has been 40% which I'd love to have some 50%+, however on that complaint, I find that I'm avoiding more and more single malts which are sitting at that abv unless I've heard it's awesome.

As MacBaker62 said they're not better or worse, just different and hence worthy of exploration.

I totally agree with SquidyAsh that blends bottled at higher strenght would be interesting and probably increase the quality as well as the demand. More blends should be considered from a quality perspective and released as non-chill filtered with high malt content. Those blends would of course be much more expensive but also more appreciated among single malt consumers as myself. Compass box is a perfect example of a bottler that thinks in terms of quality. Great King Street - Artists blend - for example is actually better than many single malts out there. Especially since a lot of single malts are actually "presented" as cheap blends, that is chill-filtered, coloured and diluted to 40% ABV. Nevertheless, there are good cheaper blended whiskies with high intrinsic quality that are really enjoyable, providng plenty of whisky education. You guys have already mentioned several of them in this discussion. But from my perspective, I would like to see more quality blends that are presented as good single malts, just as Compass box are doing, where proper amount of grain whisky actually improves the malt content.

I think the confusion and lack of respect has multiple sources. For one, as Victor and others noted, it is difficult to articulate the distinctions between blends and malts that can lead to blends seeming to taste worse than malts. Many might just mutter that the blends taste grainy, diluted, etc. without any more articulation. I admit, it is difficult to articulate in words the subjective differences in taste between the two and the reasons why some blends seem to taste worse than many malts. In my own experience tasting blends and malts at the same time can help one help to flush out the distinctions between the two. Maybe somebody could post some links to essays or posts where the distinctions between the two are more fully articulated?

Second, even as a native English speaker and one inclined to legalese, I find the lack of more consistent and nuanced terminology in Scottish whiskey, and particularly blends, distressing. About all you know you are getting is something aged at least 36 months. Otherwise in blends, grain to malt proportion, single malts included in the blend, type of casks used for aging, etc. is all unknown unless freely given by the producer and even then who knows if they can be trusted. Compared with say the terminology used in American whisky and what it stands for (aged in newly charred oak barrels, etc.), Scotch whisky terminology and what it stands for is opaque at best. I think it is unfortunately natural to look down upon something one cannot fully comprehend.

Third, is a wild card of geographic availability. Sadly in my part of the world, there is a wide variety of pretty cheap blends but we are very slow to get some of the more refined and newer blends which I can only salivate over, e.g., Cutty Sark Storm, some of the newer Famous Grouse expressions, Te Bheag, BNJ, a number of Grants expressions, who knows when, or if, they'll ever be available in my corner of the world. In the absence of them, well many consumers may be stuck with an unfortunate impression of $12 1.75 liter jugs of cheap blends that are not very good.

Fourth, of course the blend world is pretty big, just limited to blends (not vatted malts) there is a large variety. To my palate, there are several blends that are better than many single malts, e.g., JW Black and Isle of Skye 8, and many that I would reach to just because they are tasty, Black and White, Grants Family Reserve, etc. I can understand that the real cheap ones get little respect and the expensive ones like JW Blue get a lot of respect but the stuff in the middle tends to get overlooked and ought to be the focus of our conversation.

Sorry for the rambling thoughts, I like blends and will continue to seek out certain ones, just wish I could find more of them in my corner of the world.

@JeffC, very well said.

Being more concerned with what I like than with traditions, Scottish or otherwise, if I were to design some blended Scotch, I would set up a product line with no wheat whisky whatsoever, but would take my "grain whisky" (as if barley were not a grain) from corn, malted and unmalted barley, and oats. Oats would make a great addition to Scottish blends, and column-still barley whisky at the usual (and ridiculous) 90+% distillation ABV would be better off always in my mind than the wheat. You can keep the corn, since it is pretty harmly stuff and just blends into the background.

..."harmless"...last line

Another blend from Compass Box that is very good is Great King Street! Like a handful of other blends, it's bottled at 43% instead of the standard 40% for blends.

Other blends I've had that are bottled at 43%ABV; Ian MacLeod's Isle of Skye 8 year old. Ian MacLeod's Isle of Skye 12 year old. Johnnie Walker Green Label blended malt.

I don't know folks... I keep trying out blends because I want to find some cheap scotch that I like, but I keep being disappointed. I'm in the US, where you can get very good bourbon for the same price as the blends, so I just can't seem to justify spending my money on them.

I find that most blends (I'm talking at the lower end of the price spectrum - JW Black and below) have a mildly unpleasant aroma. It's kindof like what I would expect slightly rancid, sour apple cider to smell like. This must be the grain whisky, since it's prevalent in all the blends I try. So I've yet to find a blend that I want to keep my nose in, even if some of them taste pretty good on the palate (like JW Black, Black Grouse, etc). Nosing is half the fun of whisky, and I just don't get it with blends.

@valuewhisky. I don't know that it is about finding cheap Scotch as much as finding something good, regardless of price. We may be trying to compare apples and oranges here by setting single malts as the benchmark. As has been said, there are many blends that are as good as single malts, but in a different way. And many of them are still considerably cheaper, just not dirt cheap. And Bourbons and Ryes are a different animal again and should probably not be compared to single malts based on the same criteria. I think all the mystique around single malts has set us up to be a little judgemental of everything else. For me, a good blend is just a good drink and doesn't require fancy glassware, or need to sit for an hour to reach its full potential, or require a full analysis of what it smells and tastes like. It's just a different experience from drinking very expensive single malts. I think many single malt prices are getting ridiculous. I don't know about you, but I have spent a lot of money on highly touted single malts that have been totally disappointing. Some of my very favourite single malts and blends are in the relatively lower price range.

Thanks for your input, this is exactly why I thought this would make a good discussion topic that would elicit a variety of opinions. Cheers.

Victor, good point about noting that it is common to refer to a blended Scotch as "Scotch blended with grain spirits or whiskies." This is just one more reason for there to be consistent Scotch terminology. How is a single malt made of barley any less a grain whisky than something made of rye, corn, oats, or wheat which are also grains? It's not, they are all grain. Someone reading about blended Scotch for the firs time might think single malts were made out of a potato or sugar cane rather than lowly grains.

@BlueNote I hear you. I have been totally disappointed by expensive single malts. I got an Ardbeg Corryvreckan for my birthday, and honestly I wish it was just a bottle of Highland Park 12, because I generally don't sit around and do the whole "tasting thing," I usually just like to have a good drink. Malts like HP12 are affordable and offer up very pleasing flavors and aromas. I can just drink it, or I can sit and study it and be happy. HP12 is only a couple dollars more than Johnnie Black, and JWB just doesn't offer up the same level of pleasing flavors as HP12. Even when I'm just kicking back with a drink, I still want it "delicious" to be the first thought upon smelling and tasting. Many blends taste delicious, but the nose is off-putting, making me not want to drink it, even when I'm not paying close attention. A great example is Black Grouse - I thought the palate was near perfect for just enjoying, but the nose was so funky (the typical blend nose) that I didn't want to pour it.

I only brought up bourbons because I would probably give blends more of a chance if I didn't have a delicious alternative at the same or cheaper price.

I used to look down upon blends (the grain part was the cheap "filler") but have since become wiser as I've experienced more in my whisky journey.

Blending is an art, and if the quality and ratio of malt and "other" grain whisky is favourable, and component whiskies are complementary then you can definitely end up with a product which is greater than the sum of its parts with flavour profiles you just can't get with single malts.

@valuewhisky. Can't disagree with you on the HP 12 brother. It's about as good a value as there is at its price point. That and Laphroaig QC, Ardbeg 10, Talisker 10, Glenfiddich 15, Glenfarclas 15 and a few others are all good bangs for the buck and are always in my cabinet. But once you get up into that price area the blends get a whole lot better. Ballantines 17, JW Gold, JW Green, and many of the Compass Box offerings are all right up ther with the singles. The McKinnley's Shackleton replica is very good, but not worth 3 times HP12. I just wish we had access to some of the many high end blends available in the UK.

I guess what we all want is the best whisky, single malt or blend, at a price point we can live with.

@systemdown. Excellent point re: the art of blending. There are limitless combinations possibe, each offering a particular flavour profile. I too am beginning to understand and appreciate that.

If people are going to talk about blends, they realy need to make the distinction of whether they are refering to "Blended whisky" (Single malts blended with each other and with neutral spirits) and "blended malts" (single malts from different distilleries combined) The two are completely different types of whisky, and refering to them under the same umbrella results in some confusion.

Point taken @Peatpete. JW Green and some of the Compass Box offerings are Malt Blends, or Blended Malts or Vatted Malts or whatever they call them now, as opposed to Blended Scotch Whiskies like Teachers or JW Black etc.

@Peatpete, I agree with you completely about the need to carefully distinguish the categories of "blended" in whiskies. Despite mistakenly mentioning the vatted whisky Sheep Dip, I have for my part intended to speak only of blended malt-plus-grain whisky during this conversation, and not "vatted/blended/pure" malt. Many would take great issue, though, with your description of the "grain whiskies" as "neutral spirits". For me 90+% ABV "grain whisky" is truly only one step removed from neutral spirits...but it is enough of a step for me to taste the dilute wheat whisky background in almost all blended Scotch...and what I like the least about them as a class. Certainly it is correct to say that blended whiskies are "different, not less/worse than", but what does less/worse than mean, but, which flavours do you prefer? I do prefer the barley-malt flavours of malt whiskies to blends involving wheat "grain whisky" as a group, but ALSO do, like most entering this particular discussion, evaluate the whiskies involved as individuals and like them according to their own unique characteristics. Despite preferring malts as a group to blends, there are quite a few blended whiskies which I do like better than many 'single malts'.

i.e. 90+% ABV DISTILLATION proof, prior to dilution...

Probably a little unusualy, I have very little experience of blended whiskies. Other than whatever it is that they put with coke in most bars I had never drunk whisky till I had my first malt, and fell in love. Since then I have purchased precisely 3 blended whiskies: JW Green, JW Blue, and Compass Box Spice Tree. To the best of my knowledge all are what used to be called vatted malts, and all of them are at least as good as can be expected from single malts, in my opinion. I would say from similarly priced single malts, except for the fact that JW Blue is insanely over priced, and I have never bought a single malt that cst that much to compare it to!

@Peatpete, well you must be the only person I know whose only blended Scotch has been Johnnie Walker Blue Label. Congratulations! I think that there must be some kind of award for that.

(Yes, the other two are blended/vatted/pure malts)

JW Green and CB Spice Tree are pure/vatted malts, but I've never seen any such statement for JW Blue.

I think that was @Victor's point. JW Blue is a conventional blend with a grain alcohol component.

@Victor I wasn't sure if JW Blue was vatted or a blend, I looked a bit before I made my post, and couldnt find a statment anywhere.

To me JW Blue is excellent, but it is $120 excellent, not $300 excellent.

@Peatpete, yes, there are many of us who love Johnnie Walker Blue Label...if someone else is buying.