Talk:Single malt Scotch

older entries

Came here because of the Featured Articles nomination. A technical question presents itself: Just when does the bulk of the starch get broken down? I suppose that kilning would denature the enzyme; so all the sugar production would take place in the Malting step; is this right? Then the Mashing section says that the hot water dissolves all the sugar and starch; but starch isn't soluble in water. Does some more starch get broken down here by the enzymes, or is this just a misprint, and should it just say that the sugar is dissolved?

Nice article; after some minor copy editing, I'll vote for its inclusion. Dandrake 07:33, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

More tehcnicalities: is it actually phenol, C6H5OH, that is contributed by the smoke? Or is it a complex mix of phenols (various similar compounds)? I'd suspect the latter, since the flavors are so variable that more than one compound would probably be involved. Dandrake 07:41, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing here about the mystique of the water used in making whisky. (Falls on granite, trickles through peat, or it's not good enough for whisky.) Has this gone out of fashion? I know that many years ago when Inverness was considering fluoridaton of the water supply, obections were raised that it might interfere with the making of whisky (mainly or entirely mere grain whisky in this case). How serious that was, I don't know, but it did appear in the papers. And the magical water was one of the popular explanations for why no one could quite duplicate Scotch whisky. Dandrake 07:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

About the conversion from starch to sugar. If the malting process were to continue untill all the starch was converted to maltose the barley would be at full sprout, the cotyledon would be producing chlorophyl, and the resulting whisky would be very bitter. The kilning temperature is controlled so that the malt is never at a temp that would denature the enzymes needed to breakdown the starch. It takes several hours to dry the malt, up to 24 hours. Every refrence I have available to me suggests that the enzyme breaks down the starch during the mashing process, but you're right, the starch is broken down by enzymes and then disolves, not the other way around. I'll go fix that now.

I've made beer, and it starts out starchy and winds up sweet. The temperature of mashing is critical in the nature of the beer - the malting produces alpha and beta amylases - alpha nibbles a single glucose off the end of a starch, while beta takes bigger bites. More alpha amylase activity gives beer more fermentable sugar, but beta makes malto-dextrins for "mouth feel". How, exactly, that plays out in whisky is not obvious to me.

I've also lived with a distillery in town - they have a unique smell, not particularly pleasant to most people. Henry Troup 00:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's more than one phenol. I, as a biochemist, should have realized that such complex flavors could not come from one chemical, but I got caught up in the refrences always refering to phenol level, not phenols. I could go run an analysis on some Scotch to make sure, but why waste the Scotch? There must be literature out there somewhere in a peer reviewed journal describing such a test. Hmmm, more research, yippie. Fortunatly, that's another easy fix to make. Thanks for the input, and the copyedits. Gentgeen 08:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put in a section on water, including the water source being the main consideration for placing the new Arran Distillery, which I hope covers "mystique" regarding water. As I don't fully understand it myself, (I'd use distilled or deionized water for production, so I could get consistent results, but that's why I'm a scientist, not a distiller) I must have left it out subconciously. Gentgeen 08:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh I did have one question. Does mashing involve mashing (like potatoes) or is it being used like in N England where you "mash the tea", which similarly involves hot water rather than beating/squashing. fabiform | talk 15:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's mashing as is done for beer production, hot water is used to get the desired compounds out of the grist, so "mash the tea" is probibly the right idea. The grist is about the same texture as cracked wheat, not creamy like mashed potatoes. Gentgeen

And it might be a good idea to take the link to the wikiproject out of the article, it leads to a template with items such as "another fake link" etc, which I don't suppose was intedted to be seen by readers. fabiform | talk 00:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. By clicking that link, readers and taken to a page that asks them to become editors. They are encourgaed to add tasting notes to the various whisky pages. Because of that link I went from doing copyedits to adding pages back when I was a newbie. Gentgeen

Regarding the lack of photos - despite my being in at least four different distilleries in the last year, I seem to have neglected to take a single photo (as such thinks are surely only for the touristas). I've emailed my companions to see if they have anything decent they're willing to GFDL/PD. Also, I think I can get a decent product shot tomorrow (sun), assuming it's sunny enough. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got decent shot of Royal Brackla in the bottle today, will upload it tomorrow. Gentgeen 02:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Title of the article

This might sound pernickity, but shouldn't the title of this article be 'Single malt whisky'? The word "scotch" is an Americanism - I know it's widely understood, but the as the originators of the drink, the Scottish themselves, would not call it "scotch", shouldn't the Wikipedia follow their usage? If people agree, I'd be happy to rename the page and make the appropriate choices in all the links.Katherine Shaw 15:31, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Scotch Whisky is correct. Plenty of Scots call it Scotch. See http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/ . If you call a Scotman "Scotch" though, then you're asking for trouble. You can get single malt Irish Whiskey (note the 'e') and I think an article about that would be better of being called Single malt Irish whiskey than Single malt Irish whiskey, so maybe there is an argument to move the page to Single malt Scotch Whisky, but I don't think it's necessary. Mintguy (T)

They really don't, they only refer to as Scotch when it's being sold to Americans.

I've just come across this article. I too was surprised to see it under "Single malt Scotch". I always refer to it as "Single malt whisky", and would never ask for it as a scotch. (Also, the S in scotch should not be capitalised anyway, jguk 21:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that single malt whisky clearly states that there are other single malts, obviously the move is a bad idea. Even if I was surprised to find that there are other single malts - WP is there to educate people, not pander to their prejudices and uninformedness. -- AlexR 23:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't stay at a name which is hardly, if ever, used. What about "Scottish single malt whisky" (though really, I'd prefer just merging the bits on single malt whiskey into an article located at single malt whisky, jguk 23:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both those suggestions would definitely be better.

There are many single malt whiskeys that are not scotch, so i believe the two articles need to be seperate, and at their current names. The ever-popular Google test agrees—there are 139,000 hits for "single malt scotch", and only 94,700 for "single malt whisky" and "single malt whiskey" combined. Foobaz·o< 23:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But a google test is heavily weighted to american biases, due to the disproportinate amount of americans online and the fact it is an american company.

Perhaps it makes sense to move some of the general material about production, etc., to fill out the article on Single malt whisky. Single malt Scotch could remain to highlight the unique Scottish whisky characteristics, traditions, and individual distilleries. —Michael Z. 2005-03-20 23:44 Z

I like this suggestion a lot. Foobaz·o< 04:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of cutting up a featured article into several articles, but if it can be done well, maintaining the quality of this article, I'd be ok with that. Gentgeen 07:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All scotch is whiskey but not all whiskey is scotch. The article is heavily influened on scotch and I think it should remain that way. If anything, move the non-scotch specifics to another article (single malt whiskey perhaps). Cburnett 07:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are you on about, no scotch is whiskey! jguk 21:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, what are you going on about? All scotch is whiskey. Scotch *IS* whiskey made in Scotland. The converse is not true; only some whiskey is made in Scotland so not all whiskey is scotch. Perhaps you've been drinking too much scotch today. Cburnett 22:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's been drinking whisky. —Michael Z. 2005-03-21 22:46 Z

From whisky:

Whisky (or whiskey) is an alcoholic beverage distilled from...

Cburnett 06:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scotch is always spelt whisky. Strewth, what next? You'll be telling me you have ice with it soon! jguk 06:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the requested move for the same reason as Cburnett. Single Malt Scotch and Single Malt Whiskey are two separate things (one a specific, one a category)...any drunk can tell you that...and I'm a drunk. —ExplorerCDT 14:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub, I'm a connoisseur, jguk 06:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Not really a move candidate at the moment - perhaps a vote should be made as to whether it should be merged into single malt whisky (which I think it should). violet/riga (t) 22:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support The coverage of whisky, and particularly single malt whisky is too Balkanised at the moment. There are literally hundreds of single malts available from various parts Europe, Japan and North America which are not Scotch but within the Scotch tradition. A number of these malts have beaten the big Scotch single malts at major tastings. And yet the most detailed description of single malt on Wikipedia is exclusively under "Scottish single malt". Its like describing all of football under the English football heading because they invented it. I don`t know what Wikipedia does in these cases. In the meantime, as suggested above, I have expanded the stub that was the general single malt page mostly using the generalizable information from this one (which is most of it). Personally, I think such duplication is undesirable. There is no need to Balkanise an international drink category in this way. It would be better to move the general information into the single malt section, and either have a short "Scottish single malt page" on the specific scotch single malt stuff or consolidate it in the main Scotch article. This would make things clearer and less misleading for readers.Buyo 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the term Scotch is zealously guarded by the malt whisky producers of Scotland themselves. (And incidentally, also the term glen, judging by their recent lawsuit against Glenora distillery of Nova Scotia.) —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 04:17 Z

Yes because the US is a huge whisky market, whisky is Scotland's largest argicultural export, that doesn't mean Wikipedia which isn't supposed to have a US bias. Lots of British things have different names for the US, Like the first Harry Potter book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

---

From the article:

"When complete, the liquid has an alcohol content of 5 to 7 per cent by volume, and is now known as either wash or weak beer"

5-7% sounds like bloody strong beer to me. Is "weak beer" a technical term, and if so perhaps the wording can be explained? WikianJim 30 June 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Robert Stein link

The link to Robert Stein in "History" seems to go to a totally different character. Also Laphroiag is an incorrect spelling in the picture caption where the casks are shown.

History Update

Diageo (Johnnie Walker, Guinness, Smirnoff) has owned UD and others for at least a few years, bringing something over half the distilaries now under their control.

It's also interesting to note that new ownership of a distillery doesn't always include product.

Examples: What is now Diageo once owned, mothballed and retired Bladnoch. It was then purchased, and reopened with a provision of limited production - but as that was recent, nearly anything bottled is still from Diageo warehouses. Ardbeg (on Islay) which was mothballed by what is now Diageo, then purchased by Glenmorangie, revamped and was put back into production - but up until they started selling the Very Young Ardbeg (aged 4-5yrs) they had to buy stock from Diageo for sales. In both these cases the distilleries have changed enough to suggest a potential change in the future taste.

Failed GA

Inadequate references. An article like this would benefit from inline citations. Four generic sources in the references is far too little. Good work otherwise. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

Hi All, I give up. I have removed maps made by "Brian Gotts" numerous times. He keeps putting them back. They are wrong. 1. The islands is not a region. 2. His Speyside isn't even in the right place 3. He originally didn't even have Islay on the map 4. This is an article on "Scotch" and he shows Irish Whiskeys I will suggest that someone replace his map with a correct one form any of a dozen sources - including the SWA.

No wonder these entries are a shambles. --ScotchGuy 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has been adding the text "Click for an accurate map of Whisky producing regions in Scotland" and an external link alongside the map. This is surely unacceptable. If the map can be agreed to be wrong, let's fix it. I observe that the map quotes three sources. Are you saying all three sources are wrong, or that the map inaccurately reflects the sources (I asked this in another talk page a month ago)? Notinasnaid 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Parallel discussion: Talk:Scotch whisky#Map Notinasnaid 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cobweb urban legend

I was interested to see this, as breweries often encourage cobwebs to catch malt flies. Since part of a distillery's function is to act as a brewery it would make sense they'd do the same, so a reference for this particular UL might be interesting. - Ian Malone

Change of Name

Why was the change allowed. How was it done. SINGLE MALT SCOTCH is a protected term...and wahat people will serach for. NOT Scottish Single Malt. Can someone change this back?

By using the page history, I can see that a logged in user with a small number of edits chose to move the article back in March. Moving pages to another title is a simple task for any user who is logged in, and is one reason you might choose to create an account. However, as the exact same move was discussed earlier on this talk page, and no consensus was reached, the move should not have been completed without another discussion. I'll go ahead and move it back. Gentgeen 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Single Malt Whisky is the non US bias term, just because the Scottish industry has protected the term Scotch for sales in the US doesn't mean it should be used here, wikipedia is not an advert, please keep the proper page title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maintaining the link with the wider single malt world

I feel it is important for any changes to this article, and there have been a few recently that have harmed here, to maintain a link to the wider world of single malts, which now encompass many other countries than just Scotland. Please don't obscure this knowledge for readers. The aim here is to inform and I believe it is basic knowledge for anybody reading this page in any of its forms to know that Single malt Scotch is a type of single malt whisky. I have tried to do that in as unobtrusive a way as possible.Buyo 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On the cask

Anybody know just how big the ones used are? Mention it? Trekphiler 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition and Purpose of Malting and Mashing

The article seems to suggest that malting converts starches to sugars, when in reality it does no such thing. The true purpose of malting is to develop the enzymes (most notably α and β amylase) that will break the long starch chains down into the smaller glucose, maltose and maltriose bits during the mashing process. Basically, the article attributes many of the elements of the mashing phase to the malting phase. I am not a regular editor, but as someone quite familiar with the process, I thought I should bring this to the attention of the community. Look to wikipedia's malt page for sources, etc. 71.208.112.157 (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No suitable balance can be achieved between concision vs. consistency with Scotch whisky. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Single malt Scotch → Single malt Scotch whisky – Noun missing from article name. Scotch is the geographical origin. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Scotch is here used as a noun, since that alone is the common name for the whisky. Not uncontroversial. Needs discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't it also be lowercase? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, generally seen as a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:CONCISE. It's commonly referred to as just Scotch. Not sure if it should be an upper or lower case S though... -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Kj cheetham not sure the 'Scotch Whisky Association' would entirely share that interpretation? Coldupnorth (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The regulations of geographical origin are also the 'Scotch Whisky Regulations' not the 'Scotch Regulations'... Coldupnorth (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect it's more commonly just called Scotch outside of Scotland. E.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scotch has "Scotch" on it's own meaning the whisky. Even http://scotchwhisky.com/magazine/from-the-editors/8583/is-scotch-a-victim-of-its-own-success/ doesn't say "whisky" in the article title, though it does in the main text. There's also the "Scotch on the rocks" cocktail, etc. I am starting to think it should be capitalised though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• The names of groups of people and other words derived from the names of places are generally capitalized, so uppercase is correct (see, e.g., MOS:GEO). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• But it is not a proper noun / proper name. It is a type of whisky, not a unique particular thing, so it is a common noun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment we also have an article Scotch whisky. We should use similar naming conventions for both articles.
• Support per WP:CONSUB (not the nominator's rationale). Srnec (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Apologies, I should have requested a name change with a discussion first and perhaps a different rationale. By way of a comparison, see Bourbon whiskey, it's not Bourbon standalone. I'd also argue that Scotch has other usages, eg Scotch bonnet. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Are they ever commonly referred to simply as Scotch? And do they have a single malt variety? Bourbon is a different case, as the whiskey isn't the primary topic for the word (the French royal house is also pretty notable!). Scotch whisky, however, clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fair points but I would argue there is also a complication in that we also have the parent article Scotch whisky. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support for consistency with the article Scotch whisky. I wouldn't necessarily have a strong stance on moving that article as well, but that seems a harder sell, and there is little logic behind having two different names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Whisky" is already implied in the phrase "Single Malt". Unless there are single-malted Scotsmen or eggs, it is more concise and disambiguation enough. Walrasiad (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.