What causes sulfur flavin a bottle of scotch?

Oh jeez. I mean sulfur "FLAVOR" in the title. Sorry for typo

Here's a good reference article : dramming.com/2010/11/…

But mainly what happens is that wine and sherry producers will burn sulphur candles inside the cask to prevent bacteria from forming.

The sulphur smoke then settles in the inner layers of the cask and, thus, any spirit that comes in contact with it picks up those sulphur notes.

That's right. I remember now. I'm not terribly comfortable with that. Sulfites in wine can make me feel a bit "thick around the gills", so to speak (mildly nauseated). Plus, I hate the flavor of sulfur.

I just wasted $100 on a bottle of crap. It pisses me off that distilleries knowingly sell scotch with a rank sulfur flavor. I don't think that industry standard of "acceptability" is fair or good business.

I feel ripped off right now with this mainly undrunk bottle of Springbank.

And I have this to say to Springbank: Kiss my cask! I want my money back! Rip off! Thieves!

I avoid food with sulfites, such as certain dried fruits, for a reason. Sulfur tastes like crap smells! Yuck!

Note to Springbank: Take your sulfur candles and shove 'em up your casks! Selling sulfur-tainted scotch crap with a straight face is highway robbery!

I was cranky this morning when I got up. Sorry if I was a bit rude to Springbank, although I do think that if fewer customers put up with sulfur in their scotch, and made a stink about it, then the industry would shift into more acceptable levels of sulfur in scotch. We have a right to object to sulfur-tainted scotch, especially in specialty bottles that cost more

@rigmorole I wholeheartedly agree! So what do you say to distillers who claim that sulphur is actually a flavor profile and actually liked by some?

Well that's a very good point you raise, Malt Activist. Bravo, good sir.

Personally, I think the industry attitude towards recognizing sulfur as a legitimate scent/flavor profile is BS.

I have yet to meet anyone who seeks out expensive bottles due to sulfurous profiles. It's my guess that this is a ruse perpetuated by the industry to justify selling bottles that are excessively sulfurous.

I think that bottles with high sulfur content should be labeled as such. A little warning sticker? To me, there are acceptable levels of sulfur but I put up with it rather than enjoying it.

I also think that bottle coming from casks with high sulfur profiles should be discounted. Let the market dictate whether those bottles sell quickly or slowly.

Plenty of people would put up with high sulfur in a Springbank Fino 14 if the price was right. Personally, I would pass at any price. I have better things to spend my money on that a delicious scotch tainted by the taste/smell of rotten eggs.

Now, as to whether somebody would seek out a bottle like mine on purpose for the price I paid: doubtful, unless perhaps they like smelly/farty scotch . . . in which case, all power to them, so long as they don't peer pressure me to "recognize and appreciate" sulfurous scotch.

Let's call a spade a spade: overly sulfured scotch happens when somebody leaves a sulfur candle too long in a cask.

Now, if such a thing is done on purpose then it's not unreasonable to assume that the cask in question was a bit too "gamey" to begin with. I think quite a few scotch drinkers might recoil at the sight of a cask like that, enough so that they would not deign to drink scotch that was aged in it for years and years. Let's not forget that scotch is mainly alcohol. If any kind of fungus thrives in a cask of scotch, growing to unpleasant levels like some mutant colony of filth, then why not just throw away the troublesome cask and start out with another better one, rather than trying to save it, even if the cask in question once housed PM or some other great sherry, port, wine, bourbon, or whatever.

In summary, I would tend to classify folks who love sulfur in their scotch as fetishists. There are certainly weirder fetishes on earth, especially in the UK. . . . I'm not judging such folks. I just don't want to pay for scotch that tastes like a rotten egg because they have learned to like it, mostly due to the fact that they have come to love ancient bottles of scotch, which have begun to spoil. Would I pay thousands of dollars for a 60+ year old bottle that tastes amazing aside from overtures of farty stinky garbage? Hell no. I would not. Would I keep eccentrically unique antique furniture in my home from two hundred years ago with scrapes scuffs and all manner of cosmetic blemishes? Hell yes I would. I dearly love old antiquey things. And, no, I would not tend to fix or repair such antiques. And, yes, if given the opportunity, I would certainly taste a glass of scotch from an ancient bottle of Glen Grant. But I would not pay thousands for a bottle. That is where I draw the line. This said, I still think most folks put up with the spoiled and garbagey things in an ancient bottle of scotch in order to taste the delightfully rare things that go along with them.

Any time a scotch critic extoles the virtues of sulfurous scotch, I think of the Emperor without any clothes (in this case, the distilleries that produce the rotten eggy stuff). Unfortunately, most of these distilleries probably know they are producing tainted scotch so it is really the general public that end up being the "naked emperor" in that analogy. . . .

p.s. My bottle of Springbank Fino 14 Year has no cork rot or cork taint whatsoever. That is not the problem.

"Flavin" in this thread's title is absolutely awesome.

Ralfy's YouTube video 181 is his sulfur show. That's a good resource along with the article on dramming.com.

@rigmorole I think it's important to understand WHY sulphur candles are used. To argue that alcohol kills bacteria so it's not needed is simplistic, inaccurate and condescending.

First of all, if the alcohol in the spirit killed the bacteria, and that solved the problem, why would distilleries waste money on sulphur candles? Why? Because it's not the bacteria that are bad for whisky. It's what the bacteria do to the casks while they are being shipped and stored that then adds a bad flavor to the spirit.

Second, If you've ever looked at antibacterial hand wash, the ABV (I use that term cautiously - I do not endorse drinking it) is 70% . Not all newmake goes into the cask that high, and we know that lower % does not guarantee effectiveness (in the medcial setting).

Third, Alcohol does not kill all microbes. Clostridium dificile, for instance, is not killed in its spore form.

If the industry could find a "better way", believe me they would. But some common and well-respected scotches do include sulfur as part of the flavor profile, whether they advertise it or not. HP 12 has a sulphury note, and I've smelled it in a batch of A'Bunadh and in Glenrothes 1998. Personallym I don't mind it. It's not something I go out of my way to find in a malt, but if it's there no big deal (unless it overwhelms the flavor.

If you can't stand it, stay away from the sherry matured spirits, or go for Amrut Intermediate Sherry. They actually but the spirit into the casks in Spain so there is no candling, and so no sulfur.

Happy Dramming!

I read some where that EU regulations prohibit the exportation of barrels that have not been treated with the sulfur candles - how Amrut gets away with it is a mystery but I am not complaining.

I have a 2011 Amrut Portonova: the best year. Can't wait to try it. I may buy more Amrut. Which is better: the new Portonova or the Intermediate Sherry?

Amrut probably gets away with it because it is stored in a country that doesn't require it. I'm becoming more of a fan of Amrut already due to no sulfur/rotten egg/poo taste. I haven't been blown away by the Fusion that I still have open. It's okay but not great.

@rigmorole both the Portonova and Intermediate are awesome. It's like picking a favorite twin.

@sengjc, Amrut does not import empty or disassembled wine casks. They ship back to India freshly emptied wine casks filled with their own whisky. The whisky preserves the casks.

This smell of sh*te is one of the reasons why I have bashed the Dalmore 12 YO so much in one of my recently published reviews. It totally ruins the finish of a very recent (thank God, a reasonably priced as well) drams, giving it an unmistakeable "sauerkraut" odor. In moderate quantities the sulphuric notes could easily be ignored and do no harm, but some distilleries seem to not give a damnabout it. I think that some distilleries control the end product more strictly than others do. And this doesn't depend on the financial stance of the said distilleries (if they are cash-strapped it's easy to suppose they cannot afford to throw away full casks), but I suppose they have been more of a careless sods. I mean, I haven't caught such unpleasant notes in GM expressions or in Glenfarclas' ones, but I did in more than one of Glen Elgins' (who are owned by Diageo, so they couldn't be cash-short) and in Dalmore 12 YO. I also suppose that the mighty peaty flavor of some of the Islay representatives gives a good disguise for the possible sulphur notes, so I guess that the Islay-lovers (which I am not) will be less able to detect these otherwise detestable smells. These will be more palpable in the whiskies of the other Scotland distilleries. And, on the final note, a bottle of Amrut Intermediate Sherry is something that is high on my wishlist for exactly the same reason: no possibility to develop fungus, and as a consequence - no sulphuric notes.

My friend had a bottle of Glenfarclas 17 last winter. It was RUINED by overpowering sulfur. Ruined. But he had been trained to accept it. I told him to return it to the store, it was so bad. Worse than the bottle I have now. He soldiered through it somehow. I forced myself to finish the glass that I poured to be civil. It was tough going. Talk about poo. My goodness. Poo times ten. And when I say poo, of course, I mean that the taste reminded me of the smell of poo. Just awful.

@rigmorole

I wasn't blown away with the Fusion either until I had the Intermediate. Wait until you sink your teeth into some Intermediate.

@Victor

That must have caused them a bomb then. BTW, I accidentally pressed the "dislike" button your comment - fat fingers and an iPhone, sorry.

@rigmorole Did you find any sulphur in Ardbeg Day? I wrote a review of it recently after trying it almost two years ago and then re-visiting it. The smell of spent matches and flint was very very prominent initially. But after decanting and letting it breathe for over two years that particular smell had mellowed - it was still there but a touch mellow?

Do you think that could be sulphur?

Never had a prob with sulfur in Ardbegs. For me, the sulfur has only been higher than acceptable levels in Springbank, Glenfarclas, Glendronach, Mortlach. I might be forgetting a bottle or two of some other ilk. Never had a prob with sulfur in the Islays that I can recall. It seems the worst in Springbanks, an omnipresent ghoul in too many bottles. Springbank seems not to care; in other words, the sulfur present is consistently high in Springbank products which I otherwise adore.

This said, the worst bottle I've ever tasted was a Mortlach that otherwise would have been fantastic. In the Glendronachs I've had, sulfur has never been oppressive just a little too high for my liking on a few occasions. So you can see, this does not run the gammot with sherried/sweet scotches. I've tasted a wide variety of sweet scotches and not found the sulfur to be a problem in them.

I feel that my complaint about unacceptable sulfur levels is warranted. Whiskybase reviewers agreee with me! I'm not all that picky. I just don't feel it is fair to spend 100+ USD for a bottle of scotch ruined by a really heavy sulfur presence and then be expected to "suck up" my financial loss and drink an eggy farty bottle of scotch with an attitude of "Oh, well, them's the breaks with sherried scotches." Not true and I refuse to accept the legitimacy of such a widely accepted "naked emperor in the room," so to speak.

Speaking of Amrut Intermediate, this recent review is interesting. No mention of sulfur, that's for sure, but not a sparkling review: connosr.com/reviews/amrut/…

@rigmorole I am very sorry that you are highly disappointed with your bottle of Springbank. Let me suggest that you give it some air time (like 6 months to a year). It is entirely possible that the offensive “sulfur” element might dissipate.

Here is the best article to answer your initial question about sulfur flavor in whisky:

whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2014/01/…

“In conclusion, there is good and bad sulphur in whisky. To simply pin one or two sulphur compounds responsible of the good or the bad aromas would be an oversimplification. Similarily the origins of sulphury notes seem to be impossible to track to just one source, such as sulphury cask and there is no evidence of excess use of sulphur candles in the sherry industry during the last decades, in fact quite the opposite. More likely is that there are some bad batches distilled too fast or in too warm climate that are over-sulphury, or maybe a cask has not been properly sulphured and has been contaminated with brettanomyces.”

have you read this article?

dramming.com/2010/11/…

I find myself in a great deal of agreement. I have a very strong German genetic heritage and find that I tend to like a little sulfur in my whisky. By that I mean the "spent match" or "gunpowder" smell. I really like it. I have never nosed a bottle that smelled "farty" or like "poo." Granted, I am not the biggest sherried whisky lover so I haven't had that many bottles of potentially tainted sherry casks to try. Supposedly 25%-30% of people can’t detect sulfur according to Murray. But Oliver notes at the end of the article that just like peat some people love it or hate it. I love peat. I think I also enjoy some sulfur. I have never had a whisky that I think had too much peat or too much sulfur. But then finding heavily sulfured bottles is much more difficult then finding a heavily peated bottle.

He advocates, with you I think, that distilleries should indicate the presence of sulfur in whisky just as some indicate peating. I personally would love to find more bottles with “spent matches” and “gunpowder.” But who knows? I might totally agree with you about the particular bottle you have being too sulfured. I wish I could try it.

Well, Nock, you are one of my favorite connosrs on this site. I will give my bottle some more time. Thank you for your generous response. I always read your posts twice and even three times to make sure I don't miss anything. . . I am of Scandinavian, German, English, and Scottish decent, so maybe I will just soldier through this bottle at full 55.3% if my heritage is somehow relevant. Not sure how, but I appreciate the sentiment. Those German and those Swedes and Norsk do know and love their Scotch. Gotta give 'em that!

@rigmorole do let me know what you think of those articles.

I am not saying you will ever enjoy your Springbank bottle or sulfur notes in your whisky. My hope for you is that air in your bottle will cause the flavors to migrate in a more enjoyable direction. But it might note.

I just wonder if "sulfur" flavors are similar to peat. There are obviously people who hate peat and people who love it. Perhaps there are people who like sulfur. Obviously, there are people who hate it (like Murray and yourself . . . and I believe many others would agree). However, if Oliver is to be believed (and I am inclined to think he is) there are actually people who enjoy some of those "sulfur" type flavors.

My suspicion is that more of the sulfur flavors come from the process of distilling the spirit (again see the first article I linked to whiskyscience). I think there is a lot more to the issue then simply sulfur smoke in casks.

I do agree that sulfur "notes" should be indicated on the bottle - just like peat!

Ironically, I have used Serge's knowledge as a resource far more than Murrays. I don't really know much about Murray, to be honest. I've never purchased his bible. I read older copies at the Stillhouse when I visit. He's quite knowledgeable, but I don't really trust his opinion, to be honest. It seems "commercial" in you catch my drift.

Serge is more eccentric and freewheeling to me. So many of his reviews are not about anything immediately salable. Rather, they seem like the musings of a true connosr with nothing to gain but perhaps a few invitations to scotch parties on yachts or fancy mansions and he deserves them all!

Plus I just like the guy personally. Serge answers my emails for Chrissakes! You gotta love that! Plus, his reviews are just what the doctor ordered: Eccentric and fun in just the right way. Cheers to Serge! Now I need to switch from bourbon to scotch tonight . . . .

Thanks again very much for your sterling advice, Nock. I really appreciate it. As for my bottle, I took it to a party last night. It is now half empty. Some other people really enjoyed it and that's the main thing. I don't regret the purchase. I learned a great deal.

From what I gather, the whole series of 14 year Springbanks were heavy on the sulfur. Not my thing. This said, I've read some of Serge's reviews when he does not care for hints of sulfur in some very expensive bottles . . . You, Nock, helped me to lay hands on some very rare bottles of Ardbeg right at the time in Porland when the old stock was disappearing from dusty old shelves for good. It's thanks to you that I own a few very interesting bottles of Uigeadail. Bravo! Recently, I acquired a Beist (best year) and an alligator. I'm a happy camper to be sure. Cheers to you, my friend.

I ended up taking my bottle of Springbank 14 to a party on Sunday night. It's well over half gone now. The guests didn't seem to mind the sulfur. Then again, the bottle was free. In addition, I brought two others to the party. Nobody added water to the Springbank and so it was better that way. As I've said, water brings out the sulfur.. This said, the guests at that particular party were not experienced connosrs, although they did sip and not shoot the scotch, thank goodness. I will keep the rest of the bottle at home for guests. It's not really my thing.

I do love quite a few Springbanks. It is one of my favorite distilleries generally speaking. I wrote a rave review of the white label 10 year that was bottled two years ago. I have quite a few Springbanks in my collection.

I first uncorked this bottle of Springbank 14 about two months ago. It has not improved at all. This said, I called the salesperson who sold it to me. He said that all of the Springbanks in the series (Fino, Oloroso, Amontillado, Manzanilla) were unusually sulfury and not to his personal taste.

I can attest to @Nock 's "gunpowder" and "spent matches" angle on Sulphur (Sulfur for my non-British English friends) as not being a negative.

One whisky I remember well from a tasting expo was an Old Malt Cask Mortlach - a very heavy gunpowder / flint and beef combo which I found to be absolutely delicious. None of that "rotten egg" or "baby vomit" profile at all which can plague whiskies sometimes (what I associate to be "bad" sulphur).

I would probably agree that we all tolerate or react to Sulphur differently, I personally would love to taste more whiskies with that gunpowder / flint note.

@rigmorole

Hi Rigmorole!

Well I can certainly guarantee that you will find no trace of sulphur in any of the Amrut’s I have reviewed. Not even the faintest hint of a struck match – and believe me we tried to find one. My understanding is that as well as tasting unpleasant, sulphursulphites are best avoided for health reasons. Try consuming, to excess, a heavily sulphated whisky or wine and then compare the after morning effects to a non-sulphated example of the same ABV. The funny thing for me with the Amrut sherry is that I never long for it. Right now, from our society’s stock, I’d love a class of the old Macallan cask strength or the Aberlour Abunadh (as long as it’s batch 24 or 45) or even the Glenfarclas 15. The longing is just not there for the Amrut sherry, yet it is perfectly producedexecuted in every way, except for the fast maturation. I don’t even have a strong sensory memory of the taste. The Portonova is a different kettle of fish. If I’m feeling in a very sweet mood, then I’m drawn to sample it again. The sensory memory of figs and chocolate was just great. Still feel something is missing in the fast maturation mind you, but not to the same extent as the sherry. Just my humble 2 cents.

@Victor: So true. In past the past, Gordon & Macphail produced Whiskies of the highest standard: According to them the best Whiskies in the world. They imported casks of Sherry, emptied them and immediately filled them with new make spirit from many Distilleries without any drama,ever!

Today, the demand for casks far outstrips the demand for Sherry, :-(

Slainte.

@systemdown

Yea I have experienced a slight gunpowder/flint aspect to a single malt that I really enjoyed too. I don't remember which malt unfortuantly, but it was an old one. I was surprised at the time how well it worked, becuase in general that taste profile freaks me out.