My take on the whole “Blended Malt” debate
April 1st, 2008As many of you know, there’s a big debate going on right now about the proposed definition of what has, in the past, been called “vatted malts” (i.e., a marriage of single malt Scotch whiskies from two or more distilleries). The category would now be called “Blended Malt.” It fits in between a single malt whisky (malt whisky from just one distillery) and a blended whisky (malt whisky from more than one distillery along with grain whisky).
I work with nearly all facets involved with whisky: producers (big and small), importers, wholesalers, retailers, bars, restaurants, trade groups, and the consumer. As an unbiased source, here are my thoughts on this issue. I will try to keep this as brief as possible.
Opponents to the new definition argue, among other things, that it tarnishes the highly-esteemed category of “single malt whisky” because most people will confuse “blended malt whisky” with ubiquitous “blended whisky.” I agree.
Some argue that the creation of a new Blended Malt category will be exploited by big whisky companies to fill in and expand this seldom-used category. Smaller producers also argue that the cost of changing labels, promotional materials, etc., will also be an undue burden for them.
I see where they are coming from, but I can also see a flip side.
In some ways, the new phrase Blended Malt whisky is actually logical in the context with Blended whisky and Single Malt whisky. I like that the same terminology is used. It’s easy to see (and logically understand) the transition from Single Malt whisky, to Blended Malt whisky (i.e. a blend of single malts) to Blended whisky (a blend of malt and grain whiskies). Everyone knows what the word “blend” means.
The phrase “vatted”, while all of us veterans know how this word has been used in the past and feel comfortable with it, isn’t inherently obvious how it fits in with the rest of the definitions. To me, it’s no less confusing. What’s more important to me is that a blend of malts, regardless of what you call it, isn’t called the same name as a distillery. A Macallan vatted malt will only lead to confusion, so will a Macallan blended malt.
Regarding the possible “exploitation” of the new Blended Malt category by the big boys, I don’t see it entirely as exploitation, but rather an opportunity to expand the Scotch whisky industry into an category that has been sadly ignored. I see this as a good thing for the producer and consumer.
What I really think the problem is, regardless of what categories and definitions are ultimately decided upon, is the the lack of global education supporting the category definitions. The vast majority of people still don’t know what a blended scotch is, even though we drink millions of liters of the stuff every year. And they have no clue what a grain whisky is.
Instead of spending all this time and money pissing and moaning about what to call a category, let’s just agree on one already and join together in supporting a common cause to eradicate what I feel is the real problem here: ignorance and alienation. Without education, the fundamental problem with remain, regardless of what we end up calling a vatted malt.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
John,
Thanks for walking the fine line and providing some “education”. I tend to agree more with the thoughts of John Glaser and Mark Reynier than with the SWA. You are right that the public should be made aware of what is going on.Hopefully BEFORE the SWA and the powers involved make any decisions.It would be a plus if David Williamson and the SWA would listen to our feedback as well as Deageos.
Purhaps to much seriousness on this 1st of April,so pour a dram , take a break before the WF and read todays entry at Serge Valentines Whiskyfun.
Thanks Again John and see you this Friday if not sooner.
Slainte,
Mike Dereszynski
April 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I agree with you Mike. I lean more towards supporting John Glaser and Mark Reynier than the SWA, but do believe that the SWA is just trying to do their best. Still, I would like to see the SWA be comprised of a broader representation. –John
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 am
I don’t think whiskey consumers are morons. But this strikes me as a deliberate ploy to confuse on behalf of producers.
There’s little about the term ‘vatted’ that’s beyond comprehension and I cannot see why it cannot be marketed and explained properly, in its own right.
We have ‘pot-still’ whiskey in Ireland. This type of whiskey is more complex to explain than a vatted scotch, to my mind. But that doesn’t stop the distilleries from doing so, from marketing their whiskies in that manner, and from educating the consumer about the difference between a pot still and, say a single malt or a standard blend.
The issue here is about in whose interest is it to popularise a deliberately confusing terminology. It’s certainly not in the customer’s interest to have a market sector whose name is a hybrid of two existing sectors.
To retain the term ‘vatted’ gives three separate phrases which are distinct and can be held distinctly in the mind.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 am
JC, “Vatted” and “Pot Still” is understood by you and me, but 99.9% of the whisky consumers have no clue what either means. Will changing “Vatted Malt” to “Blended Malt” solve the problem? No. But, either will work on the long term. And I am willing to go along with either, as long as we have a massive educational program to support it and back it up. –John
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
do not forget the millions who do not speak English as a first langauage or at all! they need some clear differentiation in the category names. this is the only way they see the difference at the very first sight. single malt - vatted/pure malt - blended scotch is clear. single malt - blended malt and blended scotch: they would understand blended malt as a “mix” of a single malt and a blended scotch. there are many people who not only need education in whisky, but in English first.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Good point! English would help. I have learned to understand what certain foreign words mean, even though I am not fluent in that specific language. But it would be helpful. –John
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I very much concur on the consumer education front, John. I wonder if that is something that the distilleries in Scotland could come together as a group, with the Scottish parliament and Visit Scotland involved, to achieve.
@Daavid: Some of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to whiskey are European, and English is their second, third or fourth language.
But I certainly agree with you that the proposed change in terminology is potentially confusing, especially for those new to a dram.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
John,
From the perspective of a retailer of whisky I think you are 100% correct that the category of blended/vatted malts needs to be defined with a single accepted term. What exactly that term should be, I can’t say for certain. I liked the term vatted malt, although it is admittedly imprecise; distilleries vat their whisky before bottling, and regularly vat together whiskies of different ages and cask types. I welcome the move to simplify things and standardize terminology within the industry.
However, I can’t help but feel that the SWA is being somewhat disingenuous on this front. While I am all for standardizing terminology, I think the term Blended Malt will end up adding to the confusion. There is a perception out there-rightly or not–that blended whisky isn’t as good, or interesting as single malt whisky. Personally I side with the smaller producers who feel this is an attempt by some of the bigger partners in the SWA to nip a new niche market in the bud!
The SWA is after all the same deep pocketed organization that has been raking tiny Glenora distillery in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia over the coals for calling its whisky “Glen Breton” Canadian Single Malt. Never mind the fact Cape Breton was settled by Scots, who used Scottish terms to describe the landscape. And the fact that it was these same expatriates who helped reintroduce Scottish traditions like Highland Dancing banned following the last Jacobite uprising.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Mingled malt whisky?” Just trying for something else here!