Posted on 05/02/2009 11:45:37 PM PDT by Schnucki
Radioactive material flung into the atmosphere by nuclear bomb tests is helping scientists to fight the multi-million pound trade in counterfeit antique malt whisky.
Bottles of vintage whisky can sell for thousands of pounds each, but industry experts claim the market has been flooded with fakes that purport to be several hundred years old but instead contain worthless spirit that was made just a few years ago.
Scientists have found, however, that minute levels of radioactive carbon absorbed by the barley as it grew before it was harvested to make the whisky can betray how old it is.
Researchers at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which is funded by the National Environmental Research Council, discovered that they could pinpoint the date a whisky was made by detecting traces of radioactive particles created by nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s.
They can also use natural background levels of radioactivity to identify whiskies that were made in earlier centuries.
Dr Tom Higham, deputy director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said: "It is easy to tell if whisky is fake as if it has been produced since the middle of the twentieth century, it has a very distinctive signature.
"With whiskies that are older, we can get a range of dates but we can usually tell which century it came from. The earliest whisky we have dated came from the 1700s and most have been from 19th century.
"So far there have probably been more fakes among the samples we've tested than real examples of old whisky."
The technique the scientists use is known as radiocarbon dating and is more commonly used by archaeologists to date ancient fragments of bone and wood.
It relies upon the fact that all living organisms absorb low levels of a radioactive isotope known as carbon 14,
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I won $10 betting I could tell the difference between Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark, and Knob Creek.
If it cannot be determined by taste, why are people paying more for it?
I’ll drink to that!
I grew up in Florida. Tried American whiskey (bourbon) and did not like it.
The first time I tried Scotch, when I was about 30, I thought it was horrible. Later found out that it was probably due to it being nasty, cheap crud.
About ten years later a friend got me to try a good scotch (The Macallan) and I’ve been a scotch drinker ever since. Yes, it does taste good. Fantastic in fact. My tastes have evolved towards the smokier, peaty type of scotches from Islay, such as Lagavulin, Laphroaig and Caol Ila, or Talisker from Skye. There are some others that are enjoyable such as the aforementioned Macallan or Balvanie Double wood, which are sweeter and not smoky.
It’s hard to explain, after having been a non whiskey drinker for so long. Maybe it’s genetic, as I am of Scotch-Irish stock.
Is it a man thing? Not sure.
Ah yes, the Grouse. Without a doubt the best scotch for the money.
I will bet that the purveyor / retailer made more. /grin
Just goes to show that EVERYONE is an individual and have different tastes and desires. The communist dream of a cookie-cutter 'common man', is a nightmare and this is one of Communism / Socialism's main myths and faults.
I am not you and boy are you ever lucky!
I can't buy into the idea that just because you are in government you know how to run banks and autos for everyone even though you have whiskey, whisky, bourbon and even VODKA drinkers out there. Yet still they persist in "I'm from the government and I am here to help you!" God save us all!
My current favorite is Dalwhinnie
I’ve not tried it, but it’s on my list of future investigations. Thanks for the recommendation.
I haven’t quite yet developed a full appreciation of some single-malt Scotchs. I have a bottle of The Ardbeg, which is like taking a bite of charred,smoldering peat.
I have not yet had either Old Charter Ten, or Glenlivet 18.
I shall have to diligently search for them, and report back to you,sir.
(What I like about FR is we start to talk about the F-35 JSF,and end up talking about Scotch.)
OOPS, I was thinking of another post.
I read that approx. 99% of bourbon is made in Kentucky.
Some say that the water used in Kentucky makes the biggest difference.
Now, you can use the same method, and ingredients, and it will be mighty close, but true afficianados (or snobs) would beg to differ.
I’m in Denver today, and they make a very good Colorado Whiskey here, but I don’t think they would dare call it
“Bourbon”.
For me, I will have to “research” the subject in more depth
(of the glass).
Yes, it actually tastes good.
Now, we must qualify the situation: bad, cheap, nasty whisk[e]y tastes... well, bad, cheap and nasty. And most whiskey/whisky out there is cheap, nasty crap.
Take a top-shelf vodka and take a low-end nasty vodka - side by side. Put a little splash into two glasses. Taste them side-by-side.
All that crap you can taste in a cheap vodka? Now put that into a cheap whiskey, and add some straw/oak sort-of color and add in some even nastier crap for the ‘nose’ and aftertaste of the drink, and you have the cheap whiskey experience. Cheap whiskey tastes like paint thinner and iodine.
Most cheap whiskey/whisky is not MALT whisky. This is an important differentiation - cheap, “vat” whisky is often made from corn spirits, and then blended with ever so little malt whisky to attempt to give it a hint of the ‘nose’ and taste of real single-malt scotch. It doesn’t work. Put a fine, 100% single malt side-by-side with a cheap, nasty blended whisky and you can see a) that there IS a difference, b) that you don’t need to be some hoity-toity whisky snob and self-styled ‘expert’ to identify which one is the “real” scotch, and c) there is a point in drinking real single malt whisky, and there’s no point in drinking the cheap nasty crap once you’ve tasted the Real McCoy.
Now, in American whiskeys or whiskey-like spirits, you have the same situation. You have the vast preponderance of mass-produced paint thinner and varnish removers posing as a drinkable spirit, and then you have the really good stuff.
In all things, quality costs money. For a bottle of whiskey/whisky, quality starts at about $30/bottle (750ml) and goes up. That said, there is little point in paying huge money for a bottle of single malt that has been aged more than about 18 years. Most all the character of a good whiskey has been sorted out somewhere between eight and 18 years in the cask. 12 to 15 years appears (from my observation, which is not complete - I’ve had only about 35 single malt whiskies in my day) to be optimum. 25 years and up seems to me to be an exercise in spending exponential increases in money for sub-linear increases in character or quality.
Bourbon is corn whiskey aged in oak barrels. The difference between real bourbon and nasty bourbon is that the real bourbon is distilled, then put into barrels and aged for several years. Jack Daniels is one such product, and their single barrel product is the “real” deal. (I’m not shilling for them, just pointing out that they’ve cottoned onto the single malt idea in bourbon - and they’re marketing it effectively).
Nasty corn squeezin’s is industrial corn mash distilled into a clear alcohol, then blended with a hint of bourbon to get some flavor. Again, the cheap, nasty character comes through all too often.
See where I’m going here? The secret to good spirits in general (whether whiskey, whisky, bourbon, rye, gin, vodka, tequila, whatever) is to pay for quality, which necessarily costs more because there’s so much less of it. Tequila is another spirit where the mass-production stuff tastes horrible, but the real, 100% blue agave tequila — ah, that’s a whole different experience entirely.
I’ve seen several women drink whiskey/whisky, but many women seem to prefer watering down their drinks. A couple drams of whisky and most women are tottering on their feet, whereas guys my size aren’t even noticing the effect yet. Watering down whisky/whiskey is something of a sin among whisky drinkers - a little water added to cask strength whiskies (approx 60 to 65% alcohol is cask strength) is useful for allowing more of the aromatics to escape to your nose, but watering the drink down the way too many people do with “scotch on the rocks” (scotch, ice and water — and when the ice melts, you have merely disinfected water) is just criminal. For “proof” (43% alcohol) whisky, I drink it straight (”neat” in whisky lingo) and for 55%+ cask strength, I’ll add a little dollop of water to my glass — but never ice.
You’re right, of course.
I lump it in with bourbon because to me, I quantify these things by the feedstock - ie, corn is bourbon, malted barley is whiskey, rye is rye, etc.
Woodford is a bourbon I rather like. It seems to be a quality product.
Why is blended whiskey never mentioned in these threads? Scotch and bourbon, Scoth and bourbon. What’s wrong with Canadian Whiskey?
Your post should have a “sticky” as they call it on other forums - It should stay near the top. Great post. I learned a lot.
Jack Daniels is NOT bourbon.
Well, excuse the holy hell out of me.
WR and Fighting Cock, if it pleases you. I was just trying to give an example of something that most people would be familiar with.
Sounds good to me, Pal.
I think the only way to settle all of this is at a dark-paneled bar with a couple of “comparison” rounds.
Are ya with me?
There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with it, per se. It just is neither fish nor fowl for whisk[e]y adherents of the US, whom prefer either Scotch or American whiskeys like bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, etc.
If I had to put my finger on one characteristic of Canadian whiskeys that I don’t like, and I think is the issue that makes Canadian whiskeys of limited popularity in the US, it would be this: their ‘finish’ is too sweet, or seems to be cloying. I’m not some hoity-toity gourmand wanker writing columns and books, so I can’t put it into words as accurately or floridly as others might, but if we were at an appropriate establishment for the vending and consumption of adult beverages, I believe I could show y’all what I mean in a side-by-side test.
Obviously the Canadians like it, and they’re not dropping like flies from drinking it, so there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with it. The nose is OK, the start of the taste is OK, for me it is the finish. And since most of us tend to drink whiskey in sips, the finish is rather important...
Oh, and “blended” whiskies. Here’s what I think about them:
The aim of blending is one or both of two things:
1. To create uniformity in large scale bottlings.
2. To allow the dilution of a pure product with something like clear spirit made from straight distilled corn mash - purified moonshine, if you will.
I’d rather pay for and drink the 100% undiluted product. I gots only one liver, might as well use it for only the good stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.