Come on. No, it isn't. Nobody in the world is going to confuse Laphroiag with Glenlivet, let alone with Buffalo Trace. They're fundamentally different products: they have different mash bills (so comparing them can be like comparing a Barolo to an Oregon Raspberry wine), they're produced differently (the Laphroaig is peat smoked), and they're aged differently (the Buffalo Trace in new oak for a short time, the Glenlivet in sherry butts for up to two decades).
I hear people make this comparison between wine tasting and whiskey tasting and drives me a little batty.
It's especially unfortunate that this comparison brings vodka into the mix, because vodka is a neutral spirit --- it's not supposed to be distinctive (Dave Arnold, when he was at the French Culinary, used to "make his own" by ordering potable ethyl lab alcohol and diluting it). But try to say the same thing for rum or gin: different brands are wildly different.
He's not talking about mixing styles, he's saying preference within style doesn't correlate with price, and I absolutely believe that holds with whiskey (cough whistle pig cough).
The difference between wine and whiskey is how few options you get within a style in whiskey tasting compared to wine. The options are small enough in whiskey that an amateur on a budget can memorize all of the flavor profiles relatively easily.
But that doesn't change the point that blind tasting whiskeys can give you interesting non-price correlated results.
Oh: strong agree, especially for American whiskey, where there's an extremely drinkable "well whiskey" price range, and an extremely memorable and excellent "boutique" price range (taken up mostly by Buffalo antiques), and virtually nothing worth paying for in the middle, where everyone shops.
(What's worse is that a lot of brands want to claim a price in the boutique price range --- like WhistlePig --- and so you really have to know what you're shopping for if you want to pay extra for it).
Sorry, Ron! I'm knee-jerk about people comparing wine tasting to beer and whiskey tasting. :)
> virtually nothing worth paying for in the middle
I presume you know this, but an awful lot of those craft brands in the middle (including some of the Whistle Pig line) are made by the same distillery in Indiana. Which doesn't mean that they are bad, but it does disincline one to trust any of the puffery one reads on a label:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/09/best-whiskey-spirits-from...
> Nobody in the world is going to confuse Laphroiag with Glenlivet
Of course not. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that when I do blind tastings, sometimes the cheap stuff turns out to be my favorite, other times not. (And when it does, I'm happy!)
> vodka is a neutral spirit --- it's not supposed to be distinctive
And yet it is. If you don't believe me, try comparing Ciroc to Smirnov. You don't even have to do it blind. If you can tell the difference between Laphroaig and Glenlivet (a very low bar) you'll be able to tell the difference between those two.
> rum or gin
There is definitely more variation in flavor there. FWIW, my picks are Bacardi Black rum and New Amsterdam gin. If it's a special occasion I'll have a Hendricks cucumber gimlet :-)
Yeah, the vodka situation has gone out of control.
Traditional Polish test of vodka quality: did it have any flavor? Did you go blind? Do you have a horrible hangover? If all three answers are no, 100/100.
I hear people make this comparison between wine tasting and whiskey tasting and drives me a little batty.
It's especially unfortunate that this comparison brings vodka into the mix, because vodka is a neutral spirit --- it's not supposed to be distinctive (Dave Arnold, when he was at the French Culinary, used to "make his own" by ordering potable ethyl lab alcohol and diluting it). But try to say the same thing for rum or gin: different brands are wildly different.