More Sherry questions

@OdysseusUnbound shots fired in the club! For the record I agree with much of what you are saying.

I had a bunch of issues with Sherry casks I wanted to discuss as well but I'll throw in my 2 cents on your statements...I know everyone is dying to know my opinion.

1. What are they thinking? That they would really like to keep their job and have the accounting and marketing guys stop breathing down their necks. Whisky is a business and things have to flow, also theirs loads of mediocre shit being released, not just in whisky but in food & beverage. Our exacting standards are not held by all.

2. Different strokes for different folks, some people are immune to even the worst smells. I'll give you an example, I was cleaning out the fridge at my girlfriends place and found a container of rice that had lingered in the back corner too long. When it was opened up and dumped in the garbage, the rotten aroma instantly permeated the room, an olfactory bomb went off. Her flatmate couldn't smell it, she even put her nose up to the actual rice in the garbage before even admitting that it smelled much of anything. Some people just don't perceive smells with the same intensity that you do.

Then there's the questions of tastes, to some people they enjoy certain flavours or things with intensity. I can't get my brother to drink anything heavily peated but I've never heard him complain about sulphur in his beloved sherry cask whiskys. There are also a lot of folks who drink whisky on ice which greatly dulls the palate as well.

1. While they won't announce it, the people who like this stuff know already which products to buy, someone who loves all the slew of new Macallan and HP whiskys must love sulphur because it is prevalent in almost anything they do. I cannot only blame these distilleries I mean Springbank gets away with murder when it comes to sulphur, I have tasted some gassy Springbanks and Longrows but folks give it a pass.

2. Cost pure and simple.

I know some of these are cynical, I think companies can and should do better, the casks should be treated differently but that is costly, so few companies will bother with these steps.

I don't think I'm as sensitive to sulphur as some and don't mind notes of matchbox in my whisky so long as it doesn't overly dominate. Maybe I've been lucky and not had a really badly sulphured one?

@cricklewood, you make some good points and I agree about Springbank when it comes to sherry but, here's the thing, I don't actually mind those 'off' notes as they kind of fold into the house style nicely. I'd say the same about Ben Nevis as well.

It seems that some (@OdysseusUnbound et al) are very sensitive whilst some, as @cricklewood points out, probably don't even taste much at all when they drink whisky - and I think producers know this and take advantage. We, as ralfy often says, are malt pests and perhaps not the chosen recipients of much of the crap that gets put out?!I

I was on a football site recently that had, randomly, a whisky thread. At the risk of overt snobbery, it was clear that smoothness and general ease of going down were the primary selling points, and definitely not funky off notes and unusual bouquets. I'd even go as far as saying my general impression of folks' tastes who occasionally drink whisky is that they value anything that helps get the rather funny tasting liquor down their gullet - be that by adding ice or having it taste like sherry, not whisky.

Producers, again, know this and thus market overly sweetened and heavily vanilla'd juice as it ticks those boxes. Personally, I'm more put off by overly sweetened whisky than sulphur notes but hey, that nuance of taste is what makes this hobby so appealing, right?

I'm not sure that Springbank gets a free pass when it comes to sulphur in their sherry casks. I've seen mention of it quite a few times on various forums, comments on YouTube reviews etc. In a MALT magazine article I read the other day the reviewer said that when you brought a sherried Springbank you rolled the dice on it being sulphured and they advised if you can, try before you buy.

I do think however Springbank are probably forgiven a little easier for releasing a sulphured whisky for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as @RianC said Springbank is quite a complex whisky. Often the sherried whiskies they release are not just Sherry casks but a mix of Sherry and Bourbon which helps limit the damage from some sulphured Sherry casks. Then it is quite a robust spirit and the 'Springbank funk' helps hide any off notes a little.

Secondly amongst whisky nerds like ourselves (let's face it if you are joining an online forum, writing reviews etc we are the thin end of the thin end of the wedge) Springbank is seen as being a little more authentic as a company. So any mistakes are forgiven and apart from anything else batch variation is almost expected. The likes of Macallan, sorry THE Macallan and Highland Park irritate many whisky fans (including quite a few on here) because they are seen as pretentious, overpriced and lacking in genuine quality to a degree.

If Macallan or Highland Park release a heavily sulphured sherry cask whisky it would be a case of 'that King George V ultra platinum/majesty of the Stag Beetle release from Macallan/Highland Park I had was a sulphur bomb. Cost me £200.'

If Springbank do the same it would be 'that last bottle of Springbank 15 I had was a bit sulphured. £60 I will never get back'.

I would say the same 'forgiveness' is extended to some degree to the likes of Glenfarclas and Glendronach etc for having the odd sulphured release by Whisky fans.

@Wierdo Excellent points made.

Peat and smoke also tend to hide sulphur by making it more difficult to taste. A producer like Springbank can get away with more sulphur present in a Springbank or Longrow release than it can in a Hazelburn release.

One of the better batches of Bowmore 15 yo Darkest may have some sulphur present which blends into the background because of the peat present.