June 1908

Love bourbon but still enjoy an occasional foreign whisky pour as well? Discuss some of your favorites here.

Moderators: Brewer, brendaj

June 1908

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:53 am

Almost 100 years ago the British empire was faced with a serious debate - "What is Whisky?" There were people that Scotch and Irish whiskey had to be made in a pot still and only of Malted Barley. The blending houses stated that this was not the case and whiskey could be made in a "patent" still and of other grains, and this whiskey could be mixed with other malt whisky and sold as whisky. They put together a commission of law makers and chemist to make a decision on this debate. In August 1909 they announced their decision and the blending houses won the day. If the decision had fallen the other way, there would have been single malt whisky world wide at the beginning of the 20th century instead of the end.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby bunghole » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:44 pm

Mike,

That's just one reason why the U.K. has never been known as the "Brain Trust of the Universe". The Irish and Scots invented whisk(e)y and still had to leave it to politicians to decide?!

D'OH! :banghead: :booty:

Lucky for me that my Protestant Scotch-Irish ancestors were smart enough to move to the New World when land was cheap! The native American Indians weren't to keen on the idea, but gunpowder and lead shot drove the new zoning ordinance home.

Nowadays we have the cultural quadrangle of Super Wal*Mart; Best Buy, Home Depot, & Lowes.

And, of course, "I found Love! At the K-Mart Store!" Have you seen that comercial? :roll:

Somehow Alcohol; Tobacco, and Firearms are the only authentic things we have left to hang onto.

Everything else is a sham!

This is particularly true with history. "What do you mean that there are first hand accounts that negagte my politically correct theory?!" "How inconvienent!" "Ignore them! Maybe no one will know!"

Leave it to Professor Veach to dig up inconvienient and uncomfortable facts! Thank GOD for real historians!

:arrow: ima - "Just The Facts Ma'am." - 8)
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:39 am

As I see it, the whisky debate in the U.K. was simply an outgrowth of technology and the market economy. Someone found out potable alcohol could be made more cheaply than the traditional kind. They sold it, plain and mixed with the real stuff, and called it "whisky". The true whisky makers complained because they felt their product and reputation were being misused for others' benefit (and therefore to their own detriment). In true British fashion, a committee was formed to look into it. They decided that anything could be called whisky as long as made from all-grain of any kind. Much the same thing happened in the U.S. in the same period.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:23 pm

This was also a response to what was going on in America with the Pure Food and Drug Act. It is not a co-incidence that the same man - Joseph Hodges Choate - was involved in arguments on both sides of the pond and in both cases representing the blending houses. Choate was also ambassador to Great Britain from the U S prior to these cases. He also represented Hiram Walker in the Taft decision.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.


Return to Scotch Whisky

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests