Go into pretty much any supermarket (certainly in the UK) and 40% ABV is universal strength. But you're right, in enthusiast groups 46% ABV is the norm, however you're in a minority of whisky drinkers.
The bulk of Scotch whisky production, both single malt and blended, is aimed at filling supermarket shelves because that's where the highest volumes of sales and profit come from. These products are not aimed at enthusiasts.
I'd recommend this fella if you fancy listening to a decent rant or two about the state of the Scotch whisky industry:
At times it's quite painful to watch him glassy-eyed, half-drunk, sorta slurring and struggling for words. If you've spent any length of time in Scottish pubs you'll have met guys like Ralfy and they're tbh quite annoying :D
I'll address your price of whisky comment in reverse:
> then another that supermarkets are lowballing the price and ruining its prestige.
From my interpretation, he's arguing that product dumped into the supermarkets, duty free etc is generic and unexciting (even if it is consistent). It's cheapo Scotch produced on an industrial scale that's heavily processed, and he's mostly right about that. Because this stuff is "cheap" it detracts from the attention that better whiskies should maybe get.
> He'll argue about the price of whisky being too high one day
I think he's talking about a couple of things here. One is industrial scale producers passing off certain whiskies as if they're smaller batch and playing to the myth and mystery of Scotch to the less well informed and charging a premium for what is just a higher strength version of their supermarket lines. We've seen this happen with the craft beer scene along with deceptive marketing.
Secondly a good chunk of decent whisky ends up in collections for investment purposes and pushes up the price of what is available to purchase and be able to actually drink.
Restated, the argument over price makes more sense. Perhaps he elaborates on the point over more videos (only watched 50 or so) so maybe I just caught small snippets of the point .
But he's an acquired taste for sure :)
Some brands of non-rye whiskey are, of course, contract-distilled just like most of the rye whiskey. I don't know whether Bulleit Bourbon is contract-distilled or made in-house. I do know it makes a pretty fine Manhattan. I would be surprised if Bulleit Rye is made in house.
In Scotland it's not uncommon to see "independent" bottlers. These are specialist companies that will take spirit from mainstream distilleries and then mature the whisky in their own casks. After maturation these independent bottlers will bottle under their own branding and possibly choose more traditional post processing. e.g. choosing not to add caramel colouring (E150A) or choosing not to use chilled filtration. You often end up with a much different product than that of the distillery you sourced your raw spirit from.
Maybe this is what Bulleit are doing?
Yes. The paper, however, implies that even enthusiasts dilute their whisky further below 40% ABV. For a nerdy article, that's missing most of the "enthusiast" market segment.
40% is still a thing in my group, but it’s rare that water gets added, that’s only done with higher strengths.
That's kind of my point too, I failed to express it well enough. The paper author asserts that 40% whiskies are diluted by enthusiast, and that statement can be challenged in multiple ways! Either by not going for 40% whiskies, or by going for them and not diluting them.
> Might be true for the vast majority of whisky, but once you start to hit enthusiast territory, there's whisky from 40% to above 60% ABV.
I'd say the statement is mostly true depending on how you read "diluted".
Whiskey is distilled and casked at a high % abv (e.g. 60-70) and then diluted before drinking to something less than that, e.g. 45%, 40% or lower. That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both. But (hopefully) very few people make the mistake of drinking 70% alcohol without diluting it first. That the dilution was left to the consumer rather than happens in the factory is just a detail. It doesn't really change how whisky is distilled (70%) and later consumed (~40% or something higher but still hopefully not 70...).
The paper states "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water", which is clearly not always true, certainly not in nerdy circles.
> Whiskey is distilled and casked at a high % abv (e.g. 60-70) and then diluted before drinking to something less than that, e.g. 45%, 40% or lower. That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both. But (hopefully) very few people make the mistake of drinking 70% alcohol without diluting it first. That the dilution was left to the consumer rather than happens in the factory is just a detail. It doesn't really change how whisky is distilled (70%) and later consumed (~40% or something higher but still hopefully not 70...).
I'd say that most enthusiast do not dilute most of their cask strength whisky down to anywhere near 40% ABV if they can help it. My argument is that the paper 's generalization is _very_ broad.
Ah, yes with that qualification then it's certainly not true. Cask strength isn't even that rare any more.
> I'd say that most enthusiast do not dilute most of their cask strength whisky down to anywhere near 40% ABV if they can help it.
I have heard of people who add a drop of water to a 70% whisky but I can't say I understand why. Perhaps it's individual but I just find I get a numb feeling in my mouth with anything 60% or above, which simply feels like it lessens the flavors.
I've had one whisky that was bottled at close to 70%, and it's certainly an "evaporating" feeling. For me it's situational, sometimes a 55% whisky goes down smoothly, sometimes a 46% one is harsh. The longer the tastings become, the harder it becomes for a (relatively) low ABV% whisky to compete with bold, 55%+ ones. Tasting order and length, mood, food, so many variables.
> I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.
"rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.
> "rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.
I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.
But my point is that whisky that is bottled at significantly higher proofs (remember the article says "about 40%" (emphasis mine) thus acknowledging there is already room for variation) are sold as "cask strength". This is a point you also make yourself. Thus the article is correct in the general sense.
> I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.
Which still contains the term "rare" which is a gross exaggeration of the actual market (and which was the point I was making and stand by).
I'm a massive whisky enthusiast too but I think you're analysis here is, at best, unfair. At worst you simply come off as if you're trying to flex some kind of intellectual superiority by arguing pedantic nitpicks. Sure the study is written to cover the lowest common denominator of whiskies but the key here is that it's still the common denominator and what you're arguing are lesser common edge cases. The study doesn't claim that edge cases doesn't exist even if it's only interested in the most common cases.
Might be true for the vast majority of whisky, but once you start to hit enthusiast territory, there's whisky from 40% to above 60% ABV. Some of those (including but not limited to "cask strength" bottlings) are certainly made for diluting further. Or rather, to give the customer the option to dilute to taste.
> Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water, which changes the taste significantly. Whisky enthusiasts often also add a few drops of water to the spirit before drinking in order to further enhance the taste.
I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.