The Bond drinking moment that has always gotten me is the scene in Goldfinger in which Goldfinger asks Bond, “The julep tart enough for you?” I can’t recall if that line is present in the novel—I suspect not, as Fleming would surely have known that a mint julep isn’t “tart.” My guess is that the screenwriter wasn’t a bourbon drinker, so when Bond orders his julep with “sour mash—and not too sweet,” the screenwriter thought that “sour mash” referred to the flavor profile of the spirit. At least that’s all I can figure.
Or maybe it’s a subtle gesture to indicate that the whole schtick Goldfinger has developed as “country gentleman” horse farmer in KY is a goofy affectation, that he’s generally not as smart as he thinks he is?
That's actually my favorite part of the movie! For anyone who doesn't remember the scene, Bond has just realized the true magnitude of Goldfinger's scheme, and Goldfinger calmly asks if his drink is tart enough. I've never had a mint julep so I haven't been distracted by th accuracy there, but I can see how it could be distracting fo a julep aficionado.
The book and movie are not too much alike. I re-read (most) of it recently and found it to be in the "Flemming at his worst" pile. Whereas the movie is almost certainly the best Bond movie.
One thing I did like about the book, at the beginning Bond goes for dinner in the US with an acquaintance, where they have iirc crab legs and buttered toast. It's delicious, and Bond is disgusted at the opulence of it. They begin the meal each drinking a tankard of champagne. The whole scene makes me very hungry and thirsty.
Interesting to find these bits from Bond novels, I know a lot of people have strong opinions on the water and whiskey debate. My respect for the Felix Leiter of the books grows, I suppose.
My scotch drinking friends think it antithetical to add a splash or even drink on the rocks.
Whereas my Kentucky background also suggests it is the "proper" way to appreciate a fine bourbon. Water opens up the tannins and exposes more of the Oak vanillins and other flavors.
I think Scotches open up in fascinating ways, too, but it is interesting how much it upsets my scotch drinking friends when I do it.
Of course, where I really get into trouble is being careful who is around before I similarly try opening up the tannins of a wine with a splash of water. Way more people see that as sacrilege, but the same concept applies: there are interesting flavors trapped in complex molecules and the taste buds get different experiences when they are broken down into subtler components with just a touch of water.
At least a couple of distilleries I visited in KY recommended trying bourbon neat, with a drop or splash of water, and on the rocks. Each variant gives a slightly different expression of the spirit. So that’s at least an “official” warrant for the idea that it’s not ruining the whiskey. The same goes for scotch. Some whiskeys are just more interesting when diluted a bit. (And, in fact, I think the youngest Laphroaig used to contain a suggestion on the bottle that it should be consumed in a 50/50 ratio so as not to overwhelm the palate with peat smoke.)
I find the “whiskey should only be consumed neat” crowd to have the same gatekeeping mindset as the “coffee should only be drunk black” crowd. If that’s how you like it, great, but it’s not a general rule for how these libations ought to be consumed, much less a marker of how “hardcore” you are as a drinker of them.
I'm not sure this is universally true. When I've visited Scotch distilleries, the person leading the tasting would suggest you first try it neat, then with a few drops of water. Particularly when drinking cask-strength whisky (50%+) it is typical to add some water to mellow it a bit.
On the rocks is somewhat different, as it will dilute the whisky progressively as it melts, until it's lost most of its flavor. Chilling the whisky also reduces our ability to taste it, as our tongue is less sensitive when cold.
(If you're interested in the science of how dilution and temperature affect our experience of drinks, I highly recommend Dave Arnold's book Liquid Intelligence).
I've never visited a Scotch distillery, but I had the same experience at the KY Bourbon distilleries. I found that I liked it best in the middle: with a drop of water to smooth out the alcohol and open up the flavor profile.
Same with coffee, actually: a little milk to bring out the flavor, in all but the most dry and winey specialty light roasts. From what I remember, the milk actually binds with certain chemicals in the coffee, allowing other flavors to come through. I believe this is also why even a small amount of milk makes coffee significantly easier on my stomach than completely black.
I've visited Scotch disilleries and they will all tell you to enjoy Scotch however you like, and that adding water can indeed open up the flavor and aroma. They encouraged you to try it! One person did caution about putting ice in your spirits since very cold liquids could numb or mute your tastebud sensitivity a bit.
With coffee it's also a thing of covering defects, milk is amazing in it's ability to mask bitterness and take away from the harshness, sugar's great for very acidic brews.
I love my specialty filter coffee but I often get gifted pretty dark and rather cheap blends, which work just fine for a milk coffee drink or other combinations
We visited Highland Park on Orkney (highly recommend) and the guy giving the tour insisted that putting a few drops of water in your glass is the way to go. The science is a bit murky and I haven't found any blind taste test results that could guide me to the proper amount.
With Scotch prices what they are I switched to Bourbon and actually a really cheap brand (Benchmark) and when I don't drink it on the rocks I mix it with diet ginger ale: that really "opens up" something but I don't know what it is.
Speaking of cheap, i discovered the E&J XO brandy a couple years ago and it blew me away. It's only about $12 where i get it and it beats the crap out if the $40 specialty brandy's I've gotten over the years. I have the suspicion that they flavor it or something but it's full proof and doesn't say it's flavored anywhere. It's honestly so good it feels too good to be true.
Source: previous contributing researcher & author on a whisky book. Member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. Lived in Scotland. But also, just visit any distillery there. They’ll serve it with a very small pitcher of water, usually from the same stream they use to produce it. IIRC The Macallan even sell bottles of the water from their stream so you can mix it with the same water yourself at home.
They do. Though what is the preferred mixed strength is highly subjective and so many whisky drinkers will buy “cask strength”, which is >60% ABV vs the 40% you’ll find in the ones people will often put with mixers. And then water it down to the strength they prefer. The act of adding the water itself will provide a different experience given the way it interacts with the volatile compounds as it’s mixing. So a whisky you water down yourself to 40% (not that you’re accurately measuring that at the time) will have a different nose and palette to one that came pre-bottled at 40%. Some people have a preference for cask strength mostly for the snobbery of it. Others prefer the higher ABV if you’re drinking it neat (or near neat) and the fact it’s more true to what came out the cask (I had a >80% rum from the SMWS once that was incredible). I preferred it mostly because it felt like better value; you tweak the water levels and it’s like you’ve got a dozen or more different whiskies to experiences in the one bottle. Maybe even the one glass if you’re adding incrementally as you drink.
Adding ice is more commonly frowned upon for all of the opposite reasons to the above. The cold shuts down the volatile compounds, and it dilutes the whisky (and thus changes it) in a way you have very little control over. That said, on a hot night or even just in front of a roaring fire there can be something exciting about that too.
The only wrong thing would be to say “true scotch drinkers don’t do X”. There’s no more appropriate place to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Cask strength refers to the strength that it's put in the cask, and such whiskey is unaged. It looks like a clear spirit. The alcohol evaporates over time (this I believe is called the Angel's share) and so after aging it's closer to 40-50% abv
This is incorrect, it’s the strength it comes out the cask. How else would you explain the the vast array of single malt whiskies that are cask strength and aged anything from 10 to 30 years (e.g., https://www.connosr.com/glenmorangie-cask-strength-10-year-o...).
Could there be two definitions I wonder? I might just be wrong, but I'm basing what I wrote above on a clear whiskey that I tried at a whiskey tasting, that was referred to as cask strength, with the explanation I gave above.
"Cask strength" usually refers to whiskeys that have been aged in the cask, angel's share and all. It means that the manufacturer didn't dilute the product any further before bottling.
They often do. So while you can buy "cask strength" whiskies at 50-ish percent (iirc last SMWS one I had was ~60% which was ... a little much), scotch is usually bottled at 40-44% (40% is the legal minimum).
As to why they don't always bottle it at the lower strength - perhaps it's because these higher-proofed whiskies are more for enthusiasts who will explore the whisky at different levels to find what they enjoy best.
It's not legal to call it whisky below 40% abv, and also it allows you to add water to get your desired mixture.
Personally I like having a few sips neat, add a drop of water, another sip, a little more water, etc. You get to enjoy it at a variety of strengths instead of just the pre-mixed weaker strength.
One other reason why is that tannins have longer shelf lives than many of the component flavors they lock together. Splashing it at the time of consumption is "fresher" than trying to bottle it that way.
One of the more amusing anecdotes I heard about the dilution debate was from a Scotch brand rep talking about an event where he's talking to their master distiller. The distiller got a glass of one of their whiskies neat, then just splashed a random amount of water from his drinking glass into it. He said that the major league experts tended to not be terribly fussy unless they were doing a tasting.
Probably the most dramatic demonstration I've ever had with dilution was with an Amrut cask strength single malt. It's downright boring neat, but over ice it opens up with peaches and pistachios and has since become one of my favorites for a hot day.
> My scotch drinking friends think it antithetical to add a splash or even drink on the rocks.
The flavor compounds in each liquor are different, and volatile chemical reactions take place depending on dilution and temperature. You literally can't taste some things unless you add water or lower temperature. If they never add water or cold/ice, they're just missing out on flavor.
"Although Hughes’s specialty is on the chemistry of distillation, he has some advice for appreciating whisky: Add some water to the spirit to increase your experience of the flavor.
Here’s his logic: When you add water to alcohol that’s at 40% concentration—as it is in whisky—the combination doesn’t mix into a homogeneous solution, Hughes says. It may appear that way by eye, but on a molecular level, you have clusters of alcohol in a background of water. Without added water, he says, those hydrophobic clusters hold onto flavor, and the drinker doesn’t get the full effect of whisky in the mouth. But, Hughes explains, when you start adding water, those hydrophobic clusters begin to break up, so more of the flavor reaches the tongue.
Hughes recommends adding a little bit of water to the spirit at a time until you find a flavor profile you like or you reach a 2:1 whisky-to-water ratio.
“Often people say you shouldn’t add water to whisky,” Hughes says. “But I’m of the view that it’s your drink and you can do what you like with it.”"
My bourbon drinking friends think it is unethical to add water or ice. The local bourbon groups on Facebook will roast someone with ice or water in their glass.
To me they open up in amazing ways with a splash of cold water or ice. Sometimes the oils in the bourbon will become very noticeable and change color if it’s very cold and it will change the test, for better or worse.
I love to squeeze orange rind (skin with no white part) and get the essential oils onto my whiskey and rub the peel on the rim. Opening a single barrel tonight now that you have me thinking about it.
Here’s an interesting video I found long ago about drinking scotch.[1]
> My bourbon drinking friends think it is unethical to add water or ice. The local bourbon groups on Facebook will roast someone with ice or water in their glass.
Which is funny, because if you visit any distillery or talk to industry experts (I'm friends with one of them), they'll say that you should drink it however you enjoy it most.
Performative whiskey nerds are really dumb about dilution (I'm setting off Kasey, across the thread, by roasting people for how they drink). Cask strength whiskey isn't sold that way because it tastes better (it doesn't --- past some threshold and all the extra alcohol is doing is anesthetizing your tongue), but rather so that the customer is paying for more whiskey and less water. You're supposed to dilute it. It's like saying the right way to drink orange juice is to sip the concentrate.
Anyone that roasts someone for the way they like to drink are already wrong, but with whiskey it’s just idiotic. Nearly every whiskey is better with some water on it.
I’ve recently got into car communities and they are the most snobbiest of snobs I’ve ever met. God forbid you buy a car you enjoy. That’s not the right color/leather/wheels/transmission/tunable/mileage/year/suspension etc., how could you ever drive it?
I like scotch on the rocks or with a little water. It as you say, makes the flavor much more interesting.
Too many people cargo-cult drinking and put up a bunch of snobbery. The worst are beer folks who always seem to gravitate towards the most intense IPAs while ignoring the wonderful range of Pilsners and Lagers that are out there.
As a Brit who doesn't like IPAs the beer scene in the US is awful. There are thousands of small local breweries (amazing), all of which specialize in IPAs, with their key products being a double of triple IPA. The fancy brew pubs will have a dozen or two IPAs then offer Bud Light as the non-IPA option. I wish there was some better variety. Sours coming out over the last 5 or so years is a nice change, but I really wish people saw the options around Pilsner, Lager, cask ale, and other types.
I'm a snobby scotch drinker and agree with a little water.
I was actually taught to add a little water to scotch in multiple pretty knowledgeable Scottish whisky shops and distilleries. The snobbish behavior around neat drinking is just that. Especially cask strength bottlings which really need something to open it. Just a tiny dribble of water, but it helps.
Icing anything though tends to dull rather than enhance flavor, so that's not for me, but couldn't care less how you drink it.
That said, if you friends are just drinking expensive, but mediocre and dull highlands type whisky, the water won't add much. If you're drinking something like an Islay with a lot more depth to the flavor it helps more.
Ah that's not true about beer in the US at all. I also don't particularly like IPAs and have no problem at the local breweries.
I'll grant that there was a time when a lot of places were IPA heavy but they basically always had a few other styles.
Now every brewery around me is really varied. They might have a couple types of IPAs but all have another 6 or 10 + styles. A sour or two, such as a Belgian or American type. Often a berlinerweisse. Some brown/stout/porter types. Not just oatmeal stout. And even different lager types besides "lager". I see Helles and bock, Vienna, pilsner, everywhere. A rauchbier at one place.
I've never really had to look at the IPAs in years.
I think specializing in IPA is just the easy way to make something that seems gourmet and exotic, because you can start with a mediocre generic ale recipe and make an interesting lively drink by getting the hops recipe right. And there is so much variety of interesting hop flavors that once you start down that path, there's a lot of directions you can go with it, so there's a lot of room for variety within that genre.
From my limited experience making beer at home, it's much harder to make a mediocre simple brown ale than a mediocre simple IPA. Grain and mashing is harder to iterate on than hops. Apparently the experts make a yeast bread with their desired grain bill as a prototyping shortcut (compared to spending days or weeks brewing and fermenting a batch of ale), but I never got that far before I was diagnosed with celiac and had to give up the homebrewing dream.
I tend to think the American IPA fascination is an over-correction from too many decades fascination with pale lagers (the Budweiser/Bud Light dominance) and APAs.
I'm sorry you had bad luck finding the local craft breweries specializing in things other than IPAs, but they certainly exist in the US. I know that I appreciate how much Belgian influence happened in my city's craft brewing scene at a critical juncture. There are breweries here specializing in sours from years before it was a more national fad. Their only mistake not having a big enough distribution to get the most profit advantage from more recent trends or be that well known outside of the city.
Damn yes. A lottery win fantasy of mine is to start a brewery and taproom that just does English (porters, stouts, reds, blondes, pales) and German (kölsch, bocks, hefeweizens (though these are by far my least favorite of the bunch), märzens, pilsners) style beers, because they’re impossible to find around here.
People have been drinking beer for thousands of years. There’s a lot of value in high-quality, classic styles.
I jest of course :) The ležák beers that are most popular in Czech Republic (Pilsner Urquell in Bohemia; Radegast in Moravia/Silesia) are veeery nice, but they're probably not a huge departure from any good German beers, though there's some really fun smaller breweries doing cool stuff you may not see internationally. Great excuse to visit though :D
No, there's no need to apologise! That region is now a very strongly Czech-identifying one, but before the end of WW2[0] had a significant German minority who quite possibly bootstrapped the Pilsner style. So I don't think single modern-day nationality has a claim on its origin. It's maybe just interesting to know that "Pilsner" refers to a style of beer that originated in present-day Plzeň (a lovely wee city) but plenty of places can credibly claim to make "Pilsner" style beer, including Germany.
Apologies if it sounded like I was scolding, I didn't mean it that way at all :)
Snobbery while doing the most trendy thing is usually pretty silly. IPAs are a perfect example of this. IPAs weren't some obscure thing 20 years, but now they are hip so everyone "loves" the most hoppy beer they can find.
Oh yeah, as a homebrewer, I can attest to the fact that the IPAs I brew are because I want to be trendy and cool and hip and not because I like them. Of course not. It's much more important for me to have put all that time and investment into equipment to brew something that's trendy than something I actually like drinking.
Did it ever occur to you and those who think like you that people drink IPAs (and double, Imperial, triple, etc...) because they like them? Not because of lack of experience (I'm old, I've been into beer from all over the world of all types in my travels) but simple preference?
This feels like a critique from 2013 when high IBU counts briefly became a fad. IPA land has mellowed down and "juicy" and "dank" flavors are more the recent, popular thing.
No, everyone doesn't love them. It's a great way to separate people who genuinely like beer and posers. Amongst my beer loving in-crowd, "oh...you make an extra hoppy IPA" is shorthand for "you make shitty beer and try and cover it up with hops".
So, having a background in chemical engineering, perhaps I’m missing something embarrassingly obvious here and should hand over my degree, but what does adding a few drops of water do to something that has already been heavily diluted with water? Most bourbons are not sold at barrel strength (which is typically around 60-70% ABV), and they are watered down to either “full proof” or somewhere around 45-50% ABV as the last step before bottling. Adding a few additional drops of water beyond this step does not initiate any chemical reactions and just dilutes the bourbon slightly further than whatever level the distillery decided was pleasing to a large number of consumers. At most, perhaps it encourages the drinker to swirl the glass a bit.
Obviously, there are exceptions in every direction and not all whiskeys are made the same, but bourbon is probably a lot closer to "barrel strength" than you think, it's a big part of why older bourbons are generally more expensive (higher proof, lower volume). Most bourbons aren't sold at barrel strength simply because they are blends of multiple barrels.
To my understanding, for bourbon any water added to the product is generally done prior to aging in the barrel. After that most of bottle proof comes from blending different ages of bourbon (because barrel ABV generally increases with age due to the angel's share and other factors) or different barrels of the same age that started at different (water cut) proofs to begin with (depending on the type of bourbon and its age statements).
On the factor of age, it is my understanding 60-70% ABV is expected for something closer to 7-10 year old bourbon and 3-5 years old (which is often the majority) is "naturally" closer to that 45-50% you see in the majority of bottles on store shelves.
I toured a few of the major distilleries in Kentucky last year, and most of them specifically mentioned that water is added after removal from the barrel, even for the less aged ones (of course this is skipped for some of the rarer products, e.g. E.H. Taylor barrel proof or Elijah Craig barrel proof). This is to meet certain product consistency requirements across their brands. I asked if it was the special “limestone water” originally used in distillation, and I believe it was Buffalo Trace that said no, it’s just regular water purified via reverse osmosis.
> My scotch drinking friends think it antithetical to add a splash or even drink on the rocks.
In the world of Scotch, much of the more annoying, judgemental things come from people who are either inexperienced or who want to project some image about themselves.
So some say Scots frown upon adding anything to Scotch. Firstly, whatever my fellow Scots do shouldn't dictate how you enjoy our national drink. However you should know that there are Scottish people who will drink it with Irn Bru (our other national drink - an intensely sugary, bright orange soda) so IMO all bets are off :)
Secondly and slightly less related - there seems to be a culture of oneupmanship when some people make something a huge part of their identity. So in beer for example, you'll see a lot of beer nerds really shitting on lighter beers and lionizing more bitter, hoppier beers. I still recall a sign in a CAMRA pub in Edinburgh saying "What's wrong lager boy, afraid you might taste something?" - like the idea of a light, refreshing beer implies you're juvenile or less manly :) The same is sometimes true in whisky - harder, stronger, peatier is deemed by some to be more authentic. Adding a bit of water to your dram? Prefer a whisky in the range ~40-46% ABV? Don't enjoy Octomore? What's the matter, afraid you might taste something? It's dumb, if someone's giving you these lines just smile and ignore them :)
Finally a bit of snobbery relating to younger or blended whiskies exists. Age isn't everything in whisky, I've had younger whiskies which were delightful. I've had 12 y/o which I've disliked. I've had blends which I adored, I've had single malts which I did not like. I've seen guys insist on only drinking "single malt" - which is a dead giveaway that they don't know too much but they want to seem like they do. I think these types of people can be quite receptive to suggestions and guidance, so it's worth giving them a little nudge to try something they might not otherwise try - if they insist on having a Macallan 12 then "ok let's get a couple of drams, but let's also order a Famous Grouse (entry level blend which includes at least something from Macallan) and compare".
I think a lot of the negative elements are just related to insecure people wanting to get some free Cool Person points by associating themselves with things they think Cool People are. Which is a shame because my experience of the whisky community (outside those people) is that of people who are really open, welcoming and just enthusiastic about talking about and drinking whisky - which I think we all agree is cool! And as a Scot you have my permission to add whatever you please to Scotch. I sometimes like it on its own, I'll sometimes add a splash of water in some cases and in summer I'll sometimes have it with soda or ginger beer :)
> Of course, where I really get into trouble is being careful who is around before I similarly try opening up the tannins of a wine with a splash of water
This is super interesting and something I never considered trying! There have been some pretty overpowering reds I've had which I really should have tried this with. I'll try it next time!
Yes, the expression--not the Bond novels, for the expression has been around a lot longer. I believe that Sam Rayburn's branch water came out of a Washington, DC, tap.
Pubs in Scotland (especially those near distilleries) often provide small jugs of water with which to dilute one's scotch. Some people swear by doing so, others less so.
Branch is another term for a stream, and virtually all of the good whiskey distilleries have one they use for their water. Typically the water's pleasant properties come from the geological formations it flows through, in particular limestone. So when you're watering back with branch water, you're using water of quality equivalent or even identical to that which to whiskey was watered back from cask strength with.
Besides the limestone filtering, I wonder if another reason for using branch water from upstream is that it is less likely to contain farm or animal runoff.
Old Grandad? I guess fancy overpriced Bourbons weren't around yet. I love Old Grandad (it's the only bourbon I drink) but I wouldn't expect it to be Bond's style.
Or maybe it’s a subtle gesture to indicate that the whole schtick Goldfinger has developed as “country gentleman” horse farmer in KY is a goofy affectation, that he’s generally not as smart as he thinks he is?