Single Malts vs Blends

[Mike B]

I'm going to post this on two forums here at whiskey.com to see what kind of responses I get. I'm not a big scotch drinker but I do like it, I've had both single malts (occasionally a sip of expensive stuff from my friend's glass who smokes cigars with me) and occasionally cheaper single malts that I might have, and also some blended stuff (not expensive). Is there REALLY that much difference betwen single malts and the blends? How about a comparison between good single malts and an expensive blend? Do the expensive blends hold their own in a comparison? In dog breeding, most say that the hybrids are preferable to the pure lines, usually smarter and longer-lived, mind you scotch isn't dogs though.

While it is true that hybrids can be stronger, it is the pure breds that win the dog shows

In my experience, I feel like the blends tend to be very consistent and strong up front. However, I feel like they are missing out on some of the originality that one gets with a single blend and that you don't taste layers of flavors that come out in your mouth.

[BourbonDrinker]

Both blends and single malts can be great, or ordinary.
Blends pride themselves on smooth balanced flavor profiles that are very consistent over time.
Single malts pride themselves on some signature characteristics that make them what they are, also trying to remain balanced and smooth.
I like both, BUT I have many, many more single malts because I like the little nuances.

[Jenflower8]

ok here is my opinion. i used to drink blends quite frequently in college and even up until i went to Scotland. then i tried single malts and i can definitely tell a difference. single malts have more flavor and are much smoother. blends tend to be harsh. i can now tell the difference between a blend and a single malt. as i was told by the tour leader at Glengoyne - blends are ok to have. they are really meant for mixing. but single malts are meant to be enjoyed and savored.

soooo, if you are looking to just mix a drink and not enjoy the flavor of the liquor itself - go for blends. if you want to just sit, sip and savor, go for the single malts.

[jwise]

The difference is that blended whisky has grain alcohol mixed into the whisky, making it harsh. A vatted malt, or pure malt whisky, would be a better example of you point (hybrid breeds). A blend has to be done WELL in order to not be harsh.

[bkblankenship]

Originally Posted by Jenflower8

ok here is my opinion. i used to drink blends quite frequently in college and even up until i went to Scotland. then i tried single malts and i can definitely tell a difference. single malts have more flavor and are much smoother. blends tend to be harsh. i can now tell the difference between a blend and a single malt. as i was told by the tour leader at Glengoyne - blends are ok to have. they are really meant for mixing. but single malts are meant to be enjoyed and savored.

soooo, if you are looking to just mix a drink and not enjoy the flavor of the liquor itself - go for blends. if you want to just sit, sip and savor, go for the single malts.

Respectfully, I think if you do quite a bit of research, you will find that most experts will emphatically disagree with you. As my preference is single malts as has been for 20 years, you will find there are excellent blends on the market that can be drunk without any ice or mixer; for example, as the world's foremost whisky guru ( Jim Murray ) will attest. Try drinking blends the same way as single malts; from a tulip shaped glass. There are harsh single malts as there are blends. The harsh single malts are usually because of poor cask selection or a bad heart-cut which normally can lend to the harshness; but this necessarily does not indicate the style of the distillery; just unusual circumstances. I must also disagree that blends are traditionally harsh because they are blended with grain scotch. It is usually the ratio of malt whiskies to grain scotch that many times dictate the quality of a blend. There are excellent value blends on the market as there are superior blends. One must experiment over a long period of time to find out for themselves as the nose and palate take an inordinate amount of time to discern the hundreds of aromas and tastes of scotch whiskies. For some unknown reason, many people confuse harshness with complexity. I have on many occasions attended blind tastings of single grain scotches along with single malts and in the end most people thought they were tasting a single malt when in fact it was a single grain scotch. Due to the maturation of the single grain like the single malt and the years spent in the cask, it was virtually impossible to pick out the grain scotch. We can find all over this forum that people are looking for SMOOTH scotch. And yes, I will be the first to step up to the line and admit that taste is subjective, but to only look for SMOOTH scotches is to MISS out on the hundreds of nuances of scotch itself. SMOOTH normally does not translate to COMPLEXITY. SMOOTH many times only translates to a RESTRAINED and AUSTERE dram that is pleasant but not challenging. It all comes with the development of the nose and palate. If new to single malts, start with malts that ARE SMOOTH ( restrained and austere ), such as Glenfiddich 12 YO and work your way up to the more complex and higher ABVs ( i.e., cask strengths ). And use a tulip shaped glass; NEVER A TUMBLER. Using a tumbler will cheat the nose, as the nose and palate are equally important in experiencing ANY drink.

[Jenflower8]

thank you for your input ken. i don't profess to be a scotch expert by any means. i'm just a person who started out drinking blends in college and now in my 30s, have started appreciating the world of single malts. honestly, once i found single malts, i stopped drinking blends but now that you suggested some of the top notch blends, i'd love to try some.

you are totally right about some single malts being harsher than others. we did a single malt tasting last night with 10 types and i found some harsh and some smooth. it just varies. i found the smoothest and most pleasant we had was Glenrothes.

thanks again for your input on the subject because as a scotch lover, i want to continually learn about the drink and try different types.

[Jenflower8]

and FYI, we do have the tulip shaped glasses. we just got them over the summer when we did the Whiskey Experience in Edinburgh. you are VERY right about those glasses being better to taste with. i've found that drinking the same scotch out of those versuses say a shot glass, to be quite different. we only got two and i'm thinking of purchasing two more online so we have a set (for any friends to use). any hints on where to buy these glasses that ships to the US?

[BourbonDrinker]

Google "glencairn glasses" and you will find them for sale here in the US.
As for premium blends with premium flavor in the US, off the top of my head I'd say order Suntory Hibiki (Japanese!), Johnnie Walker Gold, Ballantines 17 yr, and Dewars Signature. All are excellent, and a bit different, and complex enough to warrant a bottle. They'll surprise you, and you might like them more than some of your single malts!
Cheers!

[BourbonDrinker]

Originally Posted by jwise

The difference is that blended whisky has grain alcohol mixed into the whisky, making it harsh. A vatted malt, or pure malt whisky, would be a better example of you point (hybrid breeds). A blend has to be done WELL in order to not be harsh.

This is true, but an oversimplification of what the other (not malted barley) grains add to a blend. The grain alcohol is not the 190 proof rot gut you buy in the liquor store, but aged grain spirit carefully selected to balance the flavors in the blend. It's not just random filler used to extend the malt spirit. The difference between a standard rail blended scotch for mixing and a fine blend for sipping is profound. Order the Johnnie Walker gift set with 4 200cc bottles (red, black, gold, and blue) and you and a couple friends can see what I'm talking about. It's also a good example of the effects of additional aging.

[jwise]

I confess I was indeed greatly oversimplifying. I have samples of the Gold and Blue label Johnnie Walkers coming for just such a tasting.

[Jenflower8]

thanks for the advice folks! i'll admit my experience with blends have mostly been Dewars, some Johnnie Walker (can't remember which label but probably a mid-shelf) and Cutty Sark.

[newwhiskyworld]

The simple difference is the use of grain whisky as the base. Daniel Coffey (debatably) invented the colum still which allows a faster, higher volume but argubly lower quality distillation. This allows mass production of an inferior product - very few distilleries have won any real plaudits for their single grain releases. The grain whisky then requires the addition of various single malts in order to provide complexity, depth, structure etc.

I think it would be unfair to suggest blends are not as good as they can be terrific bottles but the cieling is probably lower. Some of the blends can make incredible releases and sone of the more 'standard' levels are also impresive - Johnnie Walker Blue, Grant's 25, Ballentines 17 etc. These sort of blends will not hold their own in a direct comparison with similar priced malts as they are a different offereing but will definately stand up on their iwn and be counted.