Blended vs. Single Malt

Welcome to the debate. WHICH IS BETTER?!?!

Well, firstly let's talk about the literal differences before we get to ambiance and subtly.

A Single Malt Scotch Whisky is ONE whisky in a bottle. From a cask into a bottle. Only 1 liquid. Single Malt = 1 whisky. That's the easy one.

A Blended Scotch Whisky is different. In the previous entry, it was explained the historical origin of blended (more consistent flavors across each bottle). The distilleries take a single malt and add in various quantities of grain whiskies (whiskies created with wheat, rye, or corn) to enhance flavors and increase quantities. Essentially, a "watering down" of the single malt and/or addition of other flavors.

There is a third type of Scotch Whisky, which is a blend called a Vatted Malt or Blended Malt or a Pure Blend. It is rare and the recently discontinued JW Green Label was one. It is a blending of only Single Malts: no grain whiskies.

Johnnie Walker, Famous Grouse, Chivas, Cutty Sark, Dewar's-these are the most well-known blends with JW being the most popular worldwide.

Macallan, Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, Glenmorangie, Talisker- these are some of the more well-known single malts.
(There are many, many more of each, but that is a general idea).

So the eternal debate: which is better? Usually the argument goes like this...

Average Joe: I LOVE SCOTCH! So like, sophisticated
Scotch Snob: Philistines. Blended is for the masses. Watered down, no character.
Joe: Hey man, it tastes good and stuff.
Snob: Your crass palate cannot discern the delicacies associated with each region! BAH!

So Single Malt Snobs say that blended malts lack character and are merely watered-down version of single malts qualities; Bud Light vs. Craft Beer.

My take is a bit more measured.

I'd say Blended has more of a CHANCE to be garbage because it can be made in vast quantities with cheaper ingredients (meaning cheaper grain whiskies), but there is CERTAINLY no reason it cannot be refined. Just different. A Single Malt is a Master in one area. Since there is 1 whiskey, it is concentrated taste. Each one has a character, a personality that comes with it. Each region has distinct flavor profiles that even within a region differs. It's the specialist, it's the expert, it is the ultimate expression of a whisky.

A Blend, however, is different. It is more well-rounded, more contained. And in that, it has subtlety. Not saying single malts LACK subtlety, but there is not a *good* blend that is strong in any particular area. A Jack-of-all-trades. Sure, each blend has distinct qualities, but I see it more like a "Greatest Hits" album than anything else. One blend brand that is (unfortunately) unavailable in the USA is Whyte and Mackay. With master blended Richard Patterson, third generation master blender, he crafts a complex, subtle whisky for a stupidly affordable price. Blends hint at flavors without committing, they flirt and play coy, but never put out. It can be a frustrating experience, but I don't find it so. With a blend from a reputable source (not Cutty Sark or Dewar's, please), you can be guaranteed a certain level of quality despite price...but also a measured take. Blended are easy to drink; single malts take time. Blends lend themselves to a more jovial, excitable atmosphere; most single malts are reserved, contemplative. These are VERY GENERAL qualities and there are always exceptions.

My favorite blends are any WM 13, 19, JW Blue, Gold, Green.

Yes, there are more bad blends, but that doesn't mean all blends are bad. You just have to watch out for them a bit more.

Next time I will explore why scotch leads to such contemplative conversation and a review of a scotch in my cabinet.