ralfy review 1009 - MacLeans Nose Blended Scotch @ 46%vol: 

Where are you getting it? My shop just got some in, and I've been pestering them about it for weeks.

Grand Whisky, by the way, they might still have a bottle or two. If you're near Naschmarkt it's worth a visit anyway.

From which store please?

@@lxiaspb Grand Whisky. Schleifmühlgasse 15.

Here in Denmark this one is actually more expensive than arran 10 or ledaig 10. Kind of hard to justify. It's about 44$.

It doesn't speak for me; the idea of supporting NAS marketing on any level runs completely against anything that could be called integrity presentation. Frankly, I'm tired of this idea that there's one "whisky community" and that anyone proclaimed, much less elected, Ralfy to be its spokesman. It's all just too groupthink in an era when people will just too readily accept the idea that a product, casked BECAUSE of the difference time does make, has its age magically made "irrelevant" because some marketer says so with one bottle but not another. There's no "knowledge of whisky", Ralfy approved or otherwise, that can avoid this simple truth.

But it isnt NAS. Its all there on the website - every single component accounted for. Full transparency. The essence of integrity.

@@rasmuselling - Yep, everywhere but on the label... "the essence of integrity", and all because producers find current labelling law "fit for purpose", because it serves theirs.

@@Malt454 well it would take quite a big bottle to fit all the details of the components. Instead you read on your phone. What’s the problem really. We’re talking super affordable world class everday dram her :-)

@@rasmuselling - Right, because now there's "no room on the label" and then you try to tell me all should be forgiven because of value/relative price. Certainly an "integrity" argument.

Your province has allowed shipping from other provinces as of Jan 1, look West, plenty out here!

@@heavilypeted Ah HA! Appreciate the heads up. I thank you for this. Certainly opens up a world of possibilities! Diving on-line to see what I can find. Cheers HP 😁

I know that route well!! Lots of traffic and a nice out crop of rocks and valleys, tight windy slopes at the mid point between the cities. Cheers

As a self-appointed whisky nerd I like Ralfy because he is not merely serving confirmation bias to drinkers, he nudges the industry and the customers in the right direction, which will undoubtedly benefit everyone. I don't need anyone to praise a bottle that I already like or to badmouth a bottle that I don't care about. I want to discover what's new and genuine. I wish the American whiskey market took some hints, as I also love bourbon and rye, but the market is flooded with redundant disingenuous bottlings of sourced mass produced whiskey.

But then there's the problem of NAS marketing, which Ralfy no longer really opposes, which says that a product aged BECAUSE of the difference ages does make can have its age made magically irrelevant because of what a producer chooses to reveal or conceal on a label. Age matters, producers know it matters, yet most Ralfyites remain in the dark while Ralfy talks about "integrity bottlings". I don't really think that Ralfy is fighting for much of anything in terms of integrity, much less reform, in whisky anymore. The popularity and fannism is now wagging the dog; Ralfy's now far more a business than a reformer.

@@Malt454 I don't see it that way. Many whisky nerds changed their mind about NAS way before ralfy did. Caring so much about age while at the same time evangelizing that the true value is in smell and taste was contradictory. If the whisky is worth it's price in what it offers in taste, age becomes less relevant, even more so in times when there's almost no higher age statement available for an affordable price. Sure, it still is missing information and it's still a blemish. No doubt about that. But refusing everything that is NAS becomes increasingly difficult with so many excellent whiskies around that just nail it even without age statement. The same can't be said about whiskies with lower ABV, chill filtration and coloring. The examples that are outstanding while not being "integrity" are very limited and usually overpriced in addition if they are anything more premium than cheap NAS entry malt or 10/12 y.o. standard for supermarkets. AFAIK NAS is the only exception ralfy has made over the years, in terms of the other indicators of quality whisky he is still adamant. And not only ralfy changed his view about NAS, I can't name a single "whisky influencer" who is still raving about age. The new shining malts come from new distilleries that have very young stuff either way, so we have reached the age where age only matters to collectors and snobs pretty much. I value the higher age statement whiskies that I have but I let the realization sink in that my wallet is not made anymore for anything beyond 18 with very few exceptions per anno.

@@domanz1- But what it boiled down to was intentionally evangelizing the subjective over the objective - "I think this smells and tastes good, and so and so agrees/disagrees with me" - and most "whisky influencers", now including Ralfy, simply don't worry about age because it's just easier not to and doesn't put them at odds with an industry that they really don't fundamentally challenge anyway. A fistful of adjectives, scores and opinions that I may or may not agree with simply doesn't impress me. Saying this whisky is better than that one is fair game, but it doesn't compare with rightly saying that NAS is as completely self serving as it is illogical - that you can't assign importance to age simply by choosing whether to disclose it according to how it fits into your marketing strategy. Any discussion of product information or "integrity bottling" lives and dies on this point alone. The popularity of recognizing that fact speaks for itself in a couple of ways, but it still is what it is. Whisky producers can no more make age "irrelevant" by labeling than "whisky influencers" can vote or score it "unimportant". Given the current climate against reason in favor of convenience, it's probably just as well that disclosure of ABV is already set down in law or strength "wouldn't matter" as well if enough people said so.

@@Malt454 age is objective, sure, but it's 100% tied to the barrels. Tired or passive casks won't produce the same results as active and flavorful casks. I still would prefer to know the age, but I don't see it as the hill to die on. SWA is inflexible with their rules, which don't really truly do what they are nominally intended to do. I mean, these rules bring us the JW Red and other 3yo blends, and even some bland single malts. Blanded Scotch whisky, I call it. Whereas Compass Box and others like them bring us interesting whiskies and the age isn't stated conventionally because it wouldn't be meaningful. So I would argue that stated age is not as informative as the objectivity might lead us to believe. SWA rules don't enforce integrity, more like limit it. Caveat emptor is a western value. Ralfy is not normalizing the NAS as excuse, he's simply sharing the bottles that he likes and recommends. That's all he ever did. I think I prefer it that way. I can't afford to taste every bottle, but I also don't want to miss out on the good ones. Aging to a flavor profile rather than a specific age is common with bourbon and cognac, no reason why some expressions of Scotch can't be. I will still give more preference to full integrity bottlings, as I'm sure will Ralfy. But I don't want to be a puritan about it, even if I am a purist. IMO it comes across a bit overly dramatic to call out Ralfy on this. It's your prerogative to say what you want, I shared what I think. No disrespect intended, malt mate. I've been watching Ralfy for a VERY long time and I've seen him nudge both, the industry and the customers in the direction of higher abv and natural presentation. The only one hasn't budged is SWA with ossified ways. IMHO it's because they're not directly affected by market forces, so now they're becoming a drag on the institution of Scotch. IMHO.

its not about comparison. its experience. Two different juices. I paid £29 Arran10 is £40 🤷‍♂️...👍🥂🙋🏻‍♂️

. . . they can use whatever they want as a grain.

@@ralfydotcom Interestingly, Roy confirmed in his vpub last week that virtually all column still grain whisky distilled in Scotland is wheat based. Funny that this is never specified in conversations around "grain" whisky as I think it would help with people's appreciation of blended scotch and single grain whiskies

And a bit ancnoc 12.

hope you bought bug case 🤠👍🥂🙋🏻‍♂️

Actually, closer to the price you suggest on other suppliers. Interesting.

I picked one up in the Chicago area (Binny's) for $35. It was only 700 ml, though.