Whisky brands that you hate

I was just thinking that Diageo do some nice stuff but I've realised I hate them for withdrawing JW Green

I probably hate Diageo for closing so many of their distilleries, but I guess it's just how the game needs to be played. The problem is probably that multimillion corporations and traditional craftmanship don't mix, but at least they're able to produce whisky that's available at a reasonable price. Imagine what prices would be like if all the distilleries in Scotland were still at a micro level and had to do all the malting, botteling,... by themselves.

look i really hate Ardbeg, well i dont hate them. Im just really sick of all this marketing flannel and malarkey. All the we are the ultimate X and the best Ywith the most of disctinctive and unique Z. My personal view on Ardbeg is bugger off with your Alligators, Gallileo's, Ardbog and to a certain extend Corryvreckan. Why bother with those when the 10 year old is much loved (though admittedly not by me), the 17 year old which as far as i can tell is considered Legendary, and the Ugiedal, which in my opinion is a great whisky.

Sorry for the rant but maybe thats what this discussion is for

cheers

also sorry for anyone i offend, it is a bit blunt, if u dont agree thats fine by me.

If I had to indulge in this discussion, my pick would be Dalmore and maybe Jura i.e. anything with a heavy Richard Paterson influence and the release of extravagant, over-priced and over-hyped whisky (coloured and at 40% ABV of course, oh, but the bottles are diamond encrusted! Wow!), although I must profess that one of my favourite whiskies, Sheep Dip 1990, was his creation (that vatting of old Ardbeg, Dalmore and Fettercairn - delicous).

I'm also somewhat with @Volks on Ardbeg. So sick of the marketing hype. Major turn off. And the whisky world keeps pandering to their so-so NAS expressions like it was all quite literally liquid gold (which it isn't, let's be honest).

Other distilleries I don't hate so much as am frustrated by - for instance those that still bottle at 40 or 43% and add caramel unnecessarily, or large distillers that won't release single casks when they can be oh-so-good (anyone tried an old single cask first fill sherried Glenlivet? You will know what I mean).

I'm fine with Diageo actually, on the whole. There are whisky booms and whisky busts. They made some tough decisions in the early 80's for sure, but that also meant that when business resumed, new distilleries were allowed to be built and we're now in the midst of a new golden era of boutique, small batch, craft whisk(e)y and we're spoiled for choice. Long live the "Classic Malts" - I don't see them disappearing any time soon.

@systemdown - Agreed 100% with everything you said. You might be interested to know that Paterson is taking questions in an online forum through Friday:

reddit.com/r/Scotch/…

Some interesting reading. Yes, he's being bombarded with questions about caramel coloring and 40% ABV. And yes, he defends both.

(He's also a Connosr member, although it seems he hasn't visited here for a few years.)

@WhiskyBee Thanks for the link, seems his responses to people querying the 40% ABV and e150 are being defended in a way that makes a mockery of the informed consumer. It's pretty much what I would have expected. I don't think I'll need to ask any questions myself.

@systemdown Have you seen his little movie; how to drink whisky like a sir? He throws some good malt away before he even thinks about drinking it :s Someone who really enjoys whisky would never do such a thing. As a so called 'expert' he comes across like a noob. So I hate him for giving a bad example, but foremost...

I hate E150 in any single malt. The Scottish whisky association should do smth about that. I'd rather have a wooden stave (prohibited) in the barrel than artificial colouring agents

Amen

@systemdown - Much agreed. Twenty years ago, his arguments might have made sense--from a marketing, not connoisseur's, point of view, that is. There's no reasonable defense for e150, chill filtration, and minimal ABV in 2013.

Is he that unaware (or even contemptuous) of his own consumer base? Is he trying to capture that exclusive niche market of wealthy casual drinkers who think JW Blue is the epitome of fine sipping? Do knowledgeable drinkers covet those pricey Dalmores? (And other than the entry-level 12 yo, name one Dalmore that isn't waaay overpriced.)

I don't get it. Distilleries like Deanston and Tobermory have greatly repaired their former shoddy reputations in recent years simply by ditching the e150 and chill filtration, and by upping their ABVs to 46%. They may have been late in doing so, but at least they finally listened to their customers and moved into the 21st century. But Paterson seems determined to continue doing things as his grandpa did them.

To be fair, there are several good things I could say about Mr. P., but this is one area where his whisky philosophy needs to evolve in a manner consistent with his own customers. And to get this thread back on track and answer @RicketyCricket's question, yeah, Dalmore would be my choice too. I've never tried anything from Jura or Whyte & Mackay, and I feel no urgent need to do so.

Poor Dalmore... I can understand that their whiskys are enough (and unjustifiably) expensive, but personally I'm ever been a supporter of this distillery. Certainly is possible find also of better at less price. Nothing to say for who think differently... (don't exist a right answer at the my question). Same for Ardbeg (never been a their fan).

I much reason for hate Diageo. They are a conglomerate of shrewed with the only purpose to make money, offering at the naive consumer a lot of mediocrity. Baileys, Johnny Walker, Gordon's, Smirnoff (sucks)... THE BEST SELLING SPIRIT IN THE WORLD!

We want then talk about their useless bartender masterclass!? I can do better of the their champions staying comfortably at home... (many recipe of the winners are of a shameful banality).

I made the error of buy the Bulleit Rye... ordinary Diageo sucks supermarket quality. Never more.

RicketyCricket wrote: Poor Dalmore... I can understand that their whiskys are enough (and unjustifiably) expensive . . . I make no apologies for stating that The Dalmore 12yo was one of the first single malts that I had the pleasure to taste. And while not overly complex, I found it an excellent choice for a beginner, at the "then" price of $21 US. Unfortunately, that price has risen to over $53 US over the past ten years or so. Not fond that the price has more than doubled over that period, but perhaps a blessing as it makes other options more appealing from a pricing viewpoint.

Things I dislike ... this conversation !! I understand why it is something that should be talked about but just because Diageo produce whisky solely for profit doesn't mean they don't make some great whisky! To me its a pleasure having a dram from a Diageo owned distillery and comparing it to an independent. Wrapping casks in cling film to stop angels share is an outrage to me too but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy a bottle just to see if the effects are negative.

The world has changed and unfortunately almost every distillery on this planet is designed to make money. Some of these distilleries end up making something fantastic and others end up cutting corners but for me its all down to taste and the way it makes me feel. Who gives a monkeys if multinationals buy small distilleries .. in most cases it just ends up making them better... bringing millions of pound of investment and different ideas into tired and in most cases broken companies in my opinion is very rarely a bad thing..

@PeatyZealot

I agree with you. There is no need for e150a in any single malt Whisky. I also don't like chill filtration.

I can understand the desire to colour match batch for batch for blends that are designed for mixing, but for any Whisky that will be put in a glencairn, regardless of ABV (though I have a bias towards cask strength), a natural presentation shows respect for the consumer, and tricks to mask this show disrespect.

My biggest beef with the industry is that they don't voluntarily give people information to make a choice. Let all bottlers indicate what is in their bottles, everywhere, not just where local laws require it.

@conorrob - Actually, I agree with most of what you said. I have my gripes about Diageo, but I forgive many of them because I like too many of their whiskies.

As for this thread, I usually like to keep all things whisky-related on a positive note. But sometimes we all need to vent a little.

I don't think there are any whisky brands that I dislike because of their corporate culture, etc. (all whisky distillers are out to make a profit, regardless of how "craft" they are or seem to be); there are some distilleries that produce inferior quality stuff but I don't "hate" the brand or the company that owns the brand (the corporate control structures in the drinks industry are beyond weird to me), I just wish they'd do better and am not likely to purchase their product unless it improves.

On the other hand, there are Non-Distiller Producers who source their whisky from actual distillers but then won't reveal where their product is from...what I'd like to see, as @Nozinan said, is transparency from these NDPs who are simply brands in search of a product, and from Canadian whisky distillers as to the make-up of the various expressions they produce (% of rye vs. corn; % of base whisky vs. flavouring whisky; types of barrel used, etc.).

@YakLord

To be fair, in Canada our NDPs are more transparent than our CPCs or LPCs....

@conorrob, why do you dislike the conversation my friend? Engaging in discussions about negative issues can be just as informative and constructive as engaging in discussions about positive issues.

I think it's the responsibility of the consumer to bring these issues to the attention of the distilleries. It helps ensure the continued production of quality whisky and, hopefully, discourages distillers from cutting corners.

Also my friend, I would like to strongly disagree with your feelings towards multinationals. Can a multinational produce good whisky? Of course it can. But that is a very small benefit when compared to the vast number of negative effects multinationals create in societies all over the world. I'm not just referring to whisky here of course, but all industries. Multinationals, and the unfettered, absolute pursuit of profit at all costs has led to the destruction of the environment and an overall reduction in the quality of life for the vast majority of people on the planet.

There is nothing wrong with making money, making a profit. But what unregulated, unfettered capitalism has led to, I would argue, is multinationals like Diageo diminishing the quality of a product, reducing the wages and benefits of it's employees, and creating a far greater strain on our ecosystem all in order to make more money.

I have to say i dislike Diageo, and Laphroaig but each one for different reasons. The Laphroaig does not fit my taste, i love ardbeg but dislike laphroaig mostly because the flavour profile clashes with what i found in ardbeg. Diageo goes without saying the butchering of the good blends has left a sour taste in my mouth.

It's fairly shortsighted to claim to hate Diageo, Pernod-Ricard, LVMH, or any other company that owns loads of distilleries. All companies exist to make profit. To increase sales volumes they need to get their products into new markets and increase demand. If you increase demand on a finite resource then things have to change - hence we see new product lines, and some price increases.

However, without the blended whisky industry there wouldn't be a single malt market at all - I don't think anyone in here's naive enough to think otherwise.

You can't say you want high quality whisky and then in the same sentence bemoan changes in production technique. We'd have never had Brora if Peter Mackie hadn't wanted to move Lagavulin production to the mainland. You wouldn't have the fascinating variation of Laphroaig 10yo's throughout the 80s and 90s if they hadn't stopped floor malting. Talisker as it exists and is loved the world over would be quite different if they still triple-distilled it.

And, where does it stop? Is it the "big foreign company" thing that's bothering you? Does anyone hate Bunnahabhain now that Burn Stewart's been bought by Distell? William Grant & Sons is a family-owned Scottish company, and they're often regarded as having spearheaded NAS whisky in the 70s, then putting age statements back on in the 90s, and then going back to NAS again now. AND their CEO was previously at Bacardi.

A blogpost I recently read made a good point - people seem hung up on small, artisanal distillers, but they don't demand artisanal handcrafted mobile phones. Do we conclude that people are idiots because they'd pick Dalwhinnie 15 over Abhainn Dearg? Or that they've been tricked, somehow?

I think many of the new whiskies we're getting now are excellent, and peoples' palates are different enough that you can find something to appeal to everyone. The glitz & marketing's a little irritating, but it certainly makes for a richer "scene" - what the hell would all we whisky nerds talk about, otherwise? :)

Think about this: thanks to Diageo, we have Port Ellen to drink 30+ years later. When Kirin acquired Karuizawa in 2006/7 there was a point where they were considering pouring the remaining casks down the drain, because it didn't fit anywhere within their business. Sure, the Special Releases PE prices of late have been getting steeper, but if you don't think that's in response to a ravenous market then you're dreaming.

Wow, this has gotten long.

Say what you like, but consider how the absence of global brands would have affected your ability to afford & acquire so many amazing - and consistently high quality - whiskies.

Dalmore because its bottlings are so overpriced and chock full of garbage coloring that you can taste and it tasted b-b-b-b-bad

im going to go out on a whim here and say the multinationals are the least of my worries. Im not saying anyone in this discussion is wrong, you have your opinions and they are perfectly valid. For me the big boys Hennesy, Diageo and Pernod are obviously profit driven entities, like any other business. Maybe they do put profit as equal priority as quality, but for the drinker they do more than that.

What i think the multinationals provide is are consistently good (and of course some bad as well) products which are accessible and available, no problems there. Also on the global market it is very rare to see bottlings of Auchroisk, Glen Ord, Mannochmore or Roseisle (for diageo). Not to mentions Pernod Ricard's stock of Braeval, Glentauchers, Miltonduff and many more. So how are they in business? Corporate multinationals..............

In addition to that, think of mortlach, whisky is used for blends and what not but there is also craft presented versions (Flora and Fauna, Langs etc.) along with superb cask strength versions from signatory allowing the distillery to express themselves. Another fine example is GlenDronach, now i no this is now owned by BenRiach, but it was owned by Pernod, it would have been easy for that distillery to veto the deal and keep Dronach in the shadows, but they were pragmatic enough to say, well we dont really use it so why not, lets sell it. Now Dronach (yes due to BenRiach) is a well established whisky with a great reputations.

I no that these companies are a bit profit driven and perhaps too much so. But there is a place for them in the spirits world and honestly i hope they stay there.

hmmmmm that turned into a very long comment. Apologies!

@Volks, certainly your comments regarding multinationals in the whisky industry allowing for world wide availability of particular whiskies, were true. Wide scale distribution and mass production, that's what multinationals are structured to do, and they certainly do it very well.

But my friend, I would suggest that multinationals are far from being the least of anyone's worries. It's because of the existence of multinationals and the way in which the endless drive for profit over and above everything else, that has led to the degradation of the environment, massive wealth inequality and a reduction of the rights of people all over the planet.

I know I'm going off topic here (surprise, surprise ; ) ) but just take a look at the TTP trade agreement many of our countries are currently entering into. This trade agreement (none of us have voted for by the way) will put further stress on natural resources, strip away internet freedoms, take presidence over domestic laws and lead a loss of manufacturing jobs all over the developed world. And who wrote this trade agreement and others like it? Our friends at Monsanto, BP and other multinationals.

Sorry... TPP.

@CanadianNinja a very well made point

Great topic! Especially since a specific distillery has been weighing heavily on both myself, but everyone with us who visited it in May on our trip to Scotland and that is Glengoyne. The whiskies were alright, nothing brilliant, but all right. We were each paying 125 pounds for the tour and were promised that we would be making our own Glengoyne blend and trying 3 very special cask strength Glengoynes, you can imagine our surprise when we first found out that the 3 special cask strength whiskies that we got to try, were also available for tasting for anyone who came into the distillery. And then when we were informed that our very own 200ml bottle of blended whisky that we got to make had to be 100mls of cheap grain whisky, and that the rest of the whiskies to choose from would be 10 yr old Glengoyne and then a variety of 8 yr old McCleods from Islay, Islands, Lowlands, Highlands and Speyside, and that we couldn't taste any of the whiskies for our blend, but had to go based off our noses, well that was a joke.

When I talked to our guide, and then their distillery, and then when they found out how upset I was about this they had their guy in Australia contact me regarding all this, each and every time they said that they couldn't understand why we were upset, even when we pointed out that what they delivered was drastically different from what they promised on their website. They even acknowledged that we were correct. All we wanted was for them to change the wording on their website to reflect what they were offering or actually deliver what they were promising, and an apology. We have yet to hear from them and the website remains as it was.

It was everyone's one sour experience in Scotland and I've had to deal with Glengoyne a few times since then and it always leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. Due to that I refuse to purchase any of their whiskies and refuse to take any whisky samples from them for review.

As for the dislike of Diageo, I understand why many people hate them, but I personally think that companies like them are necessary to a certain degree for single malts to remain affordable to the general public.

@SquidgyAsh, 125 L for a crap tour with "bait and switch"? You handled it a lot better than I would have. For that price you should be getting the Platinum Treatment.

@Victor Yeah I'm still pretty pissed off about it. Like I said it's the one distillery that when I see their name I see red honestly. At one point they suggested that I had misread the online description so when we got back to the hotel I reread it and nop I hadn't, but just to be sure I let everyone else with me read it, as none of them had booked it other then through me. They all came to the exact same conclusion that I had. And they still insist that I misread / misunderstood their online description >

@SquidgyAsh Man, you are reaaalllyyy Zen. I would have gone ballistic.

@olivier Hahaha nah, I was more worried that I had misread the description and sold all of my group a bum deal. It was when I got back and reread everything that I went ballistic!