PrintScotch or Bourbon?
From left: Fred Noe and Richard Paterson
I’m on a quick trip to San Francisco to enjoy the bounty of WhiskyFest, which is—well, it’s called WhiskyFest, which should give you a pretty good idea of what goes on. Think of a big hotel ballroom filled with tables stacked with bottles of whisky (the pour list topped 250, if you include the handful of rums and gins tossed into the mix), typically served either by guys in kilts, with rich Scottish accents, or by guys in jeans and boots, with thick Southern drawls.
This stylistic dichotomy was not lost on event organizers, who pulled together a recurring seminar-cum-riot called "Scotch...or...Bourbon?" featuring two of the more passionate advocates of each style of the spirit: Fred Noe, great-grandson of Jim Beam and representative of the Jim Beam Small Batch Collection; and Richard Paterson, master blender for The Dalmore.
As one audience-member noted, if you’d asked central casting for a kilted Scotsman and a Kentucky moonshiner, the results couldn’t have been more perfect. Noe is fond of chewing his vowels and fleshing out all the good ol' boy aspects of his bourbon heritage—"Drinking whiskey requires a glass, a bottle, and a mouth. You can sometimes do without the glass," he quipped—while Paterson bellowed in an exaggerated brogue, defending the honor of Scotch in an animated, hotel-contract-killing presentation that included flinging barley into the audience, dumping pitchers of water onto the floor, and tossing glasses of whisky over his shoulder.
While comedic flourishes kept the crowd happy, Noe and Paterson made a good argument: which whisky is more enjoyable, Scotch or bourbon (let’s forget rye, Irish and Canadian whiskies for the moment)? And regardless of the style, how best to enjoy it? Paterson recommended trying the Dalmore Cigar Malt with a piece of Scharffenberger 70 percent cacao chocolate; it was a great pairing, but my bourbon-loving mouth preferred the fruitiness of the chocolate matched with the Booker’s Bourbon instead.
How do you fit into this debate—do you prefer the smoky mystery of Scotch or the woody leather of bourbon?
About the author: Paul Clarke blogs about cocktails at The Cocktail Chronicles and writes regularly on spirits and cocktails for Imbibe magazine. He lives in Seattle, where he works as a writer and magazine editor.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
4 Comments:
This was an argument that I was having with myself recently. I like scotch, but I prefer the depth of bourbon. There's more going on there for me, and I like the woody flavor of it.
acespeed at 10:56AM on 10/25/07
Rye Whiskey! Ocean, Duck!
I am definitely an American Whiskey fancier; but, lately, unfortunately for my pocketbook, I've been running across some Scotch I really like.
Not the super-smoky peaty Islay stuff; but, some of the mellower ones.
There can be a complexity there, and a finesse, that American Whiskey, for all it's rough charm, seldom touches.
erik_flannestad at 12:37PM on 10/25/07
I think the comparison is really not appropriate:
We should ask if Bourbon or Scotch Single Malt Whisky...
And this question is quite hard to decide: there are amazing bold bourbons around and if you compare an average bourbon with an average malt I would go for the bourbon - however there are just stunning malts as well: The cited Islays for example, which kicks the hell out of you, or some remarkable malts like Aberlour a'bunadh, Macallan Sherry Oak, Glenmorangie Artisan Cask and many more!
It is not really the question what to chose, as these spirits are so different, that the need to coexist (that is the paradox in the spirit world - a flavored neutral grain spirit can be both a gin or a vodka - however that different spirits like bourbons, Irish and Scotch (plus the sub-variations blended and malt) are just whisk(e)y!
opinionated alchemist at 11:11PM on 10/25/07
Once in a blue moon, a single malt Scotch will come along and absolutely blow me away - but on any other night, that same malt probably just won't do the trick. The sole exception has actually been Paterson's recommendation - I've had the Dalmore Cigar Malt many times, always with a good dark chocolate (Black and Gold or Cadbury Old Gold are favorites), and it's consistently amazing.
On the other hand, I'm more than up for a quality bourbon or rye whiskey at any given moment whatsoever. To my tastebuds, smoke and barley just don't stand a chance against quality oak, corn, and rye. One thing I've always wondered, though, is how the difference between pot and continuous stills actually manifests itself in a whisk(e)y's taste. I've just never (knowingly) seen it as an isolated variable.
Oh! I also think Islay and sometimes Jura really overdo the whole smoke thing. I tried Superstition for the first time the other night - I guess it was alright, if you like that sort of thing. But where's the complexity in that much of one dominating note? That's not a jab at all; it's simple, honest lack of comprehension.
Jacrobat at 12:39AM on 10/26/07