I recently read an online review of a whisky that was written by a blogger. There were a number of comments and references in the review where it was evident the writer was criticising the whisky for being 40% ABV. Having such a mindset is a slippery slope – reviewers & commentators need to be careful to distinguish between “I would have preferred to have seen this whisky bottled at a higher strength; I believe it would benefit from being at a higher proof” and criticising or faulting the whisky merely for being 40% ABV, as though it were a flaw or fault in production.
It raises a few interesting points. There is no doubt that many of us prefer whiskies at higher strengths. Cask-strength whiskies – which only as recently as 20 years ago were still relatively scarce and harder to come by – are now as common as nude shots of Britney Spears, and once you become accustomed to the higher ABV whiskies, I certainly acknowledge and agree that 40% malts have to work a little harder to keep our tastebuds entertained.
But is that the whisky’s fault? Whisky has a right to be bottled at 40%. It’s been that way for over 100 years. Here’s another interesting point: Think about all of the whisky writers and commentators that are globally acknowledged and respected today, e.g. the Dave Brooms, the Serge Valentins, the Charlie Macleans, the Ralfys of the world. As recently as 20 years ago, these same people were all extolling the virtues of single malt and praising unbelievably good and sublime whiskies…that were all bottled at 40 or 43%. “This is as good as it gets!” was the unspoken undertone. 40% ABV whisky was never viewed as a shortcoming or disappointment back then (Jim Murray’s opinions notwithstanding), so when (and why?) did things change?
We can thank the likes of The Scotch Malt Whisky Society for furthering (on a global level) the appeal of cask-strength, non-chillfiltered whisky. Generally speaking, other independents followed suit (yes, there were obviously some independent bottlers that occasionally bottled at cask-strength prior to 1983) and Douglas Laing’s Old Malt Cask series, bottled at 50%, also did great things for the industry in furthering the popularity of higher ABV bottlings. And, over time, the official distillery bottlings started to do likewise. After all, consider how many official bottlings are around these days that are non chill-filtered and bottled at 46%! Most of this is all keenly appreciated by the greater whisky community, but what does this imply for the humble 40% releases? Are they really inferior, as so many would have you believe?
I used to work with a colleague who was Indian, and each day he brought in his lunch from home. Almost invariably, his lunch consisted of the leftover curry from dinner the night before. He offered me some one day, and I happily tried it. Now I can handle more chilli and spice than most people, but this curry seriously scorched my palate. “How can you taste anything in this?” I spluttered. He answered with a shrug, “If it’s not hot, I can’t taste anything”.
And therein lies the rub. And I trust you saw the analogy and joined the dots? (Psst…more chilli = more ABV!) Once your palate becomes accustomed to higher strength whiskies, it becomes difficult to detect subtlety and nuance at 40%. But is that the whisky’s fault or your palate’s? You may well have a case of the cask-strength blues.
There’s another analogy I’d like to make, and the musicians out there may appreciate this. 30 years ago, as a young & budding hard rock guitarist, I was once rebuked for my love of using a distortion effect pedal. “Distortion pedals are for those who can’t play accurately or cleanly,” I was told by a sage mentor. “The distortion just masks the fact that you can’t play”. Yngwie Malmsteem and his peers might disagree, but the truth is, you can play a crappy chord through a clean guitar and it sounds awful. But play that same crappy chord with distortion switched on and you’ve just written ACDC’s next hit single. And the next two singles after that.
And this is where things get interesting. High alcohol in a whisky can often have the same effect as that distortion pedal: It can mask a litany of sins. In many ways, alcohol = volume = noise. The louder you make it, the better things can sound on the surface, but – somewhere along the line, as the dial gets turned up to 11 – things get lost: Clarity. Subtlety. Delicacy. Lightness. Quality.
Now don’t misinterpret this. There’s no intended subtext of high ABV whiskies being bad or a poor choice for you. Far from it. But what high ABV whiskies can do is paper over the cracks and flaws that might be in the spirit. When the volume and bass are pumping on a song, you can be forgiven for not hearing the quiet, contrapunctal melody in the background. Similarly, when the ABV is 60% and the whisky is huge and bombastic, you may not detect an underlying off-note. Perhaps a vegetal bitterness; an out-of-balance oakiness; a one-dimensionality; or some sour feints. It takes a good and experienced palate to sift through the higher alcohols and volume and to interpret what lies underneath.
And these are the two unfortunate and inadvertent legacies that cask-strength bottlings have left on our palates. (i) We’re so used to the volume being turned up loud that we’ve forgotten how to appreciate whisky when it’s quiet, and (ii) we’re losing the ability to detect faults and flaws in a whisky.
(As a brief aside, Whisky & Wisdom has explored this same phenomenon previously, and it’s one of the main reasons I believe beginner and intermediate whisky drinkers unfairly fall out of love with Glenfiddich. And why experienced drinkers suddenly discover that Glenfiddich is a brilliant whisky after all. You can read more about that here).
My main point here is that whiskies bottled at 40% are more honest. If there are faults and flaws present in the spirit – either inherently from the distillation, or acquired during maturation – they will be more readily detected at 40%. If that same spirit is bottled at cask-strength, those same defects will be there, it’s just that many drinkers may not pick them up. That does not make the higher ABV whisky a better bottling, it just means it’s wearing a better disguise. This is one of the main reasons why master blenders nose their potential constituent ingredient whiskies with the spirit cut down to 20% ABV. At 20% ABV, the flaws and off-notes are more readily apparent and thus can be avoided when concocting the final blend.
A few years ago, I tested and demonstrated this theory during a tasting I was presenting for around 20 people. We compared two different but – in terms of flavour – comparable, Speyside whiskies. One was bottled at 40% and the other was at 58%. When I asked the attendees to vote which one was their favourite, the majority of the room (and particularly the newbies) voted for the cask-strength whisky because it had “more flavour”.
I then, before everyone’s eyes, added a pre-calculated amount of distilled water to a fresh 300ml portion of the cask-strength whisky that I’d kept aside, and we brought it down to 40% ABV. We then compared the two whiskies again. EVERY person in the room agreed that the whisky that we’d always tasted at 40% was now vastly superior. The second whisky, originally at cask strength but now sitting at 40%, was found to be inferior and in fact had quite a few flaws. Of course, it was still officially a non chill-filtered whisky, which the other one wasn’t, but – even still – it demonstrated that whiskies should be judged on the quality and character of the spirit, rather than by their strength or proof.
And I guess that’s the crux of this piece. 40% ABV whiskies aren’t bad whiskies per se. They’re not inferior, and we shouldn’t automatically dismiss them in favour of higher-strength options. Yes, it’s true that chill-filtering obviously plays a role in all of this, and it’s an inconvenient truth that almost all whiskies bottled at 40% have been chill-filtered, and so they may lack the body and texture of their higher-strength counterparts.
But the next time you’re assessing a 40% whisky and finding fault with it, don’t immediately attribute the fault to the whisky’s relatively low ABV. If the whisky does indeed have flaws, be grateful for the fact that the strength of 40% allowed you to identify them.
Cheers,
AD
PS. There are a few references above to chill-filtering. For a comprehensive look at that subject, you might like to read Whisky & Wisdom’s Complete guide to non chill-filtered whisky. You might also like to explore the pros and cons of cask-strength whisky in our feature article, The cask-strength blues.
Got a comment to add or some thoughts to share? Scroll further down to the Comments section below…
Excellent article.
Whilst my music tastes to tend to be loud
and I enjoy a spicy curry too
I get the drift of your argument.
Is 46% and higher the new sales technique?