The KOTQ

wow – great pickup Brother Irving; I daresay this is great blog material. How did you come upon this rather big news in the Scotch industry? I gave the articles one pass through and it seems to me that there is a lot to consider.

Here’s a summary of some of the points that I thought were compelling from my first read:

I.) New terminology to better serve the consumer. There would be 2 classifications and 5 sub-classifications.

Singles
1) Malts
2) Grains

Blends
3) Blended Malts
4) Blended Grains
5) Blends

What we drink (basically) in the KOTQ is #1. What the “masses” drink is #5.

What we know to be vatted malts is #3. Don’t ask me who in blazes drinks #2 and #4 (moonshiners?).

II.) There also appears to be an economic angle too in that there is a risk of future taxation based on classification as the (British) government would stand to make more on volume taxing #5 (bad) but may levy a higher percentage tax on #1 (really bad).

III.) Region naming would be protected by legislation similarly to how the term “Scotch” is protected currently.

My first blush (based on my reading of the two articles generously supplied by Brother Irving) on the SWA proposal falls under the category “Right church…wrong pew”.

I am ALL for educating the masses so that they can make an informed and independent decision. In fact, you probably could call me an ambassador of that practice. Unfortunately, as I have learned through TSOHK, it’s often akin to banging your head upon a hard, vertical, flat surface. And, you really only have one shot at it.

I think that there should be a standard naming convention, with some teeth in it, upon which the industry and the marketplace/consumers can rely. The clearer the distinction between Single Malts, Vatted Malts, and Blends the easier it is for new consumers to enter into the appreciation and enjoyment of these spirits (particularly…ahem…single malts).

But, I think that the current SWA proposal, as it is currently configured, is not the solution. It looks like it’s just shifting the nomenclature confusion from “single malts vs. pure malts vs. vatted malts” to “blended malts vs. blends”.

Maybe, vatted malts need a name that has neither the term “malt” nor the term “blend” (nor the term “grain” for that matter) in it. Give it an identity, if you will, all of it’s own.

There is one other thing that I wanted to mention regarding vatted malts and why we should care about this SWA proposal.

At first you may think that vatted malts are an obscure entry, a whimsical oddity perhaps, in the marketplace which really has no bearing on your personal experience with single malt Scotch.

But, what if I told you that there are those who consider The Balvenie Islay cask (a favorite among many us) to be a vatted malt? – that the Islay characteristics remaining in the oak are so strong as to actually be the equivalent to the mixing of single malts from multiple distilleries.

With the apparent industry growth in distilleries trying to out market each other with more and more creative expressions with new finishes, processes, and who knows what next – these kind of practices only serve to confuse things further.

Hits a little closer to home now doesn’t it?

Those interested in a discussion (silly or no) on why there are those who consider The Balvenie 17 Islay cask a vatted malt, as well as a survey on “Islay cask – wood finishes gone mad?”, click this link for a forum discussion at the Whisky magazine forums.