Nuclear bomb tests help to identify fake whisky

[mistermack]

What is your definition of cheap. If 10 yo Laphroig fits into it, then I totally agree. But anything much cheaper than that I find little use of, except Irish for toddies and coffee. I'll have 1 bottle of Laphroig + 4 bottles of cheap vodka (for the boozing) before 5 bottles of any blended Scotch. Another thing, is that I might search specifically for a very light blended, if I want a cool drink with lots of soda in the summer.

You obviously don't like whiskey all that much, if you don't like anything cheaper than Laphroaig.
Or is it the snobbish value of the price you like the taste of? There is a lot of that with whiskey, as with wine.
Anyway, you can't even spell Laphroaig, neither can Svartalf, so I thought I'd help.

Whiskey wasn't all that popular, till blended whiskey came in, so most people seem to actually prefer it to single malts.

[Svartalf]

Actually, don't liking stuff cheaper than Laphroaig is good evidence of being a real lover of whisky, as cheaper brands are usually blended crap barely good enough to spike bad coffee or to mix with coca cola.
and it has nothing to do with snobbery... malt whisky is one thing, blended whisky is definitely lesser... if I want maize alcohol, I'll get myself bourbon or JD, not a cheap blend that has not spent time in decent barrels, and not long enough to become tasty, and that offers only the worst of both worlds.

[mistermack]

Actually, don't liking stuff cheaper than Laphroaig is good evidence of being a real lover of whisky, as cheaper brands are usually blended crap barely good enough to spike bad coffee or to mix with coca cola.
and it has nothing to do with snobbery... malt whisky is one thing, blended whisky is definitely lesser... if I want maize alcohol, I'll get myself bourbon or JD, not a cheap blend that has not spent time in decent barrels, and not long enough to become tasty, and that offers only the worst of both worlds.

I don't really agree. Who likes whiskey more, someone who like ALL whiskey, or someone who only likes a few brands? I think if you only like a few select whiskeys, you can hardly say you're a lover of whiskey.

You wouldn't call me an art lover, if I only liked a few paintings.

[Svartalf]

Liking one thing does not entail liking all versions of said thing, and particularly not the crappy ones.
Are you tryint to tell us that a meat lover has to like dog or cat food too?

I like myself a good burger, I still am no fan of golden arches.

[Tyrannical]

Article is wrong and misleading, this has been known for decades, and the key is trace elements from above ground nuclear explosions. Carbon 14 testing has nothing to do with that. I seriously want to smack the article author

[mistermack]

Liking one thing does not entail liking all versions of said thing, and particularly not the crappy ones.
Are you tryint to tell us that a meat lover has to like dog or cat food too?

I like myself a good burger, I still am no fan of golden arches.

Someone who likes dog or cat food must REALLY like meat.

Anyway, who is the biggest meat lover, a cat or a human?

[MiM]

You obviously don't like all whiskey all that much, if you don't like anything cheaper than Laphroaig.

[Svartalf]

Liking one thing does not entail liking all versions of said thing, and particularly not the crappy ones.
Are you tryint to tell us that a meat lover has to like dog or cat food too?

I like myself a good burger, I still am no fan of golden arches.

Someone who likes dog or cat food must REALLY like meat.

Anyway, who is the biggest meat lover, a cat or a human?

Who has the best appreciation for the quality of what they are tasting?

As for LOVING meat... somebody who like animal food either has weird tastes (like a special taste for offal), or it's more of a craving than actual taste.

[mistermack]

Who has the best appreciation for the quality of what they are tasting?

As for LOVING meat... somebody who like animal food either has weird tastes (like a special taste for offal), or it's more of a craving than actual taste.

There is no quality IN whiskey. The quality is in the mind of the drinker.
And equating price with quality is a fallacy.
If Laphroaig was made in the same huge quantities as Johnnie Walker, for example, and sold at the same price, Johnny Walker would hugely outsell it, and most of the Laphroaig would stay unsold. Because Johnny Walker has mass appeal.
Laphroaig is only higher priced because it appeals to fewer people.
You pay twice the price for rarity, not quality.

[Svartalf]

If you say that, don't bother with whisky, just drink everclear.
and some excellent ones are cheaper than shitty ones. It still happens that whiskies that are single malt and have spent a lot of time in the barrel tend to both be more expensive and better than young blends.

and if Laphroaig got the distilling and storage capacity to equal johnnie walker, I don't know which would lose it the fight, but if you imply that people would choose johnnie because it's actually better, you are at once committing an argument at the crowd fallacy, and gravely mistaken. walker is shit, it happens to be bland and regular, and better known in the first place, meaning that people would still buy it out of habit, or because they go for what they heard of most, or because they are averse to strong taste... it's the same with cheese, the better, strong flavored artisanal ones get hugely outsold in supermarkets because many people just wouldn't know a good thing unless it came up to them and started giving them bucco genital service.

[MiM]

Single Malts and blended are completely different products, with completely different use. The few very cheap single malts are crappy rip-offs and taste only of sugar and artificial colour, no way they are worth even their low price. End of story.

[mistermack]

and if Laphroaig got the distilling and storage capacity to equal johnnie walker, I don't know which would lose it the fight, but if you imply that people would choose johnnie because it's actually better, you are at once committing an argument at the crowd fallacy, and gravely mistaken. walker is shit, it happens to be bland and regular, and better known in the first place, meaning that people would still buy it out of habit, or because they go for what they heard of most, or because they are averse to strong taste... it's the same with cheese, the better, strong flavored artisanal ones get hugely outsold in supermarkets because many people just wouldn't know a good thing unless it came up to them and started giving them bucco genital service.

So for "good" or "quality" , just read what Svartalf likes.
The fact that most people don't actually like overpeated whiskey is neither here nor there.
Like I said earlier, whiskey didn't get really popular till they started blending it.
There's no way a peat stew would outsell Johnny Walker, and if single malt was the vast bulk of production, then blended stuff like Johnnie Walker would be the pricey rarer drink.

[MiM]

if single malt was the vast bulk of production, then blended stuff like Johnnie Walker would be the pricey rarer drink.

That's only the tautology of "supply and demand". I for one would be very happy if that was the case, and I could get my good single malts cheaply.

[Svartalf]

MiM, I love you, can I marry your ED when she's old enough?

[MiM]

MiM, I love you, can I marry your ED when she's old enough?

No, but I'll try to schedule a meet with you if I get to do work travel to Paris again - and get an evening off.