Coffey Malt

[bifter]

Thought I'd raise an old chestnut that may have lain fallow for a while. I'm sure many are familiar with it but I wanted to present my own view, perhaps raise awareness among others and canvass opinion here on the forum.

I was aware of the fact that Loch Lomond distillery was the only distillery to have both pot and column stills (I believe several others have in the past, e.g. Ben Nevis). I was also aware that they had fallen foul of SWA regulations about the classification of their whiskies, e.g. they were making whisky in a continuous still using 100% barley and labelling it as 'single malt', which the SWA took exception to. However I'd never, until recently, taken the time to look into the issue thoroughly. And, as far as I am aware, there has, as yet, been no definitive resolution to the issue.

Last night my sister asked me what the difference was between malt whisky and grain whisky and I told her that malt whisky has to be 100% barley and distilled in pot stills. But it got me thinking about what exactly the regulations say, particularly in light of the stooshie about Loch Lomond. As far as I can discern the SWA changed the regs in 2009, laying out new definitions for the types of Scotch whisky that can be produced, i.e. "Single Malt Scotch Whisky"?, "Single Grain Scotch Whisky"?, "Blended Scotch Whisky"?, "Blended Malt Scotch Whisky"? and "Blended Grain Scotch Whisky"?. The SWA maintain that this is in line with EU requirements to use 'traditional' production methods in order to qualify for regional protection of the product.

However at a stroke the regulations precluded Loch Lomond from continuing to produce 100% barley whisky in a continuous still and calling it 'single malt'. Loch Lomond was a fairly new distillery having started production in 1966 and only acquiring a continuous still in 1993. So if this practice had been started so recently one could understand how it would not be regarded as traditional. Indeed Campbell Evans of the SWA is quoted on the topic as saying:

[bifter]

The Loch Lomond distillery Web site is actually very informative and has an online shop section, with a wide range of whiskies including some single cask releases. You can access it here:

http://www.lochlomonddistillery.com/
_________________
"Whisky is liquid sunshine."
[George Bernard Shaw]

[TheWM]

bifter - you raise excellent points and a view which I would say I totally share.

As mentioned on the previous thread, I have grave doubts about the SWA and whether they as they state on their website:

We protect and promote Scotch Whisky

Or, as I suspect they protect their members' interests.

I haven't checked yet, but if they are anything like the Portland Group or The Press Complaints Commission, who whilst masquerading as some kind of regulatory body are in fact funded by a few big players, who set these types of body up to protect their own interests.

A quick glance at their website would show that neither Compass Box or Loch Lomond are members but have incurred their wrath, for what I believe are relatively minor issues in the scheme of things.

I was skimming over the regulations the other day and, again couldn't believe that a lot of time and trouble they've gone to to get a bill passed in 2009 has very little about what goes into what you drink/quality, well you know, I won't go on:

http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/media/12744/scotchwhiskyregguidance2009.pdf

But anyway, yes - it does appear that there are enforceable powers but by local Councils via trading standards.

As to the Coffey Malt - can't see what the fuss is about really. I'm going to read a bit more on my Dave Broom book that I got at Christmas and that may give me some more food for thought.

[Grant M]

I have only ever had a bottle of the NAS Loch Lomond single malt and i thought it was pretty poor, which method they used to produce it i dont know but it convinced me not to ever buy anything from Loch Lomond again without first trying it but i have never come across it at tasting events so i have never had the chance to say whether the NAS was just a poor entry level malt.

[Mark]

[bifter]

[Big Mac]

I have to say the SWA has been around for a very long time and they do work hard to protect Scotch whisky worldwide, i really dont think Scotch whisky would be in the position it is in today without the SWA and its members.

Single malt whisky to me is more that just whisky produced using malted barley to me it is only single malt when produced using copper pot stills not a continuous still method which will produce a very different whisky with less character and it was correct that exception was taken to them doing it but it is all ancient history now.

Loch Lomond to me has always been a whisky factory which has never produced anything which i have tasted and rated as worth drinking again. Things may have changed in todays whisky world where drinkers demand more and perhaps they are putting more quality into their production and maturation to produce a higher quality whisky, although i havent heard if there is currently anything worth trying from the Loch Lomond whisky factory.

[Samson]

It always seemed to me like Loch Lomond simply tried to get away with producing malt whisky using a continuous still method for profit, as you say Mac it is all very much history now.

[albo]

I can see both sides of this, though I have to say, while she SWA do lots of great work for the whisky industry and have done so throughout the years, in some instances I think they may be holding back innovation, which in a quick shifting market place isn't really a good nor forward thinking idea.

In this instance, while I understand the line the SWA are taking, I don't think they are altogether correct. What Loch Lomand have produced by all accounts is some pretty horrendous stuff, I get that, I've never heard a word in favour of it. However, that does not make what they are wanting to try wrong. I think the SWA could have given a new whisky classification for this purpose, something that quite clearly distinguishes it from Malt whisky as we know it, that would open up a new arm of whisky, not quite grain and not quite malt. We know at the moment that what LL produced was naff, but who's to say that in time it wouldn't have gotten better if allowed the room to grow and innovate. At the end of the day its a consumer driven market, if there was no place for this nobody would buy it and LL would quickly stop producing it. If however, it turned out to be fairly good, then we could have a new type of whisky on the market which should very well be much cheaper than Malt Whisky as it stands now. That's no bad thing in my mind. It's not attempting to replace Malt Whisky, its just a new innovative strand of whisky and as long as it is clearly labelled and marketed as such I personally see no reason for it not to be included.

[Alexppp]

[albo]

[TheWM]

[albo]

[TheWM]

[bifter]