Whats your prefered whisky % ABV?

[Bookie]

Whats your prefered whisky % ABV for dinking? Personally i would love to see all whisky bottled between 46% - 50% Perhaps some of you like to reduce the ABV way down to 30% or maybe lower.

[Fergie]

It depends on the whisky what strength is best but I would love it if all single malt whisky was bottled at 50% abv, i would be willing to pay a bit more if it was.

[Alexppp]

Depends on lots of factors - first of all, I wouldn't like to see distilleries abolishing lower ABVs like 40% or 43% altogether, for the simple reason that if all whiskies were at least 46-50% we'd end up consuming a lot more alcohol. Despite the fact that moderate consumption of alcohol either doesn't matter or has arguable health benefits, consuming lots of alcohol is unequivocally bad, and we all like to try lots of different whiskies in one sitting!

Other than that, in terms of quality, I can't imagine any of my favourites improving with a different ABV - can't think of a better Talisker 18 than the one at 45.8%, or a better HP18 or Lagavulin 16 than their 43% bottlings. I would concede, however, that even a small jump from 40% to 43% makes some whiskies better, just by adding more body and depth. Laphroaig 10, for example, strikes me as a bit anaemic at 40% next to the Quarter Cask or anything by Lagavulin. Similarly, travel retail versions of the Balvenie Doublewood are just that little bit more creamy and delectable at 43%.

[Crane]

i am always aware of my level alcohol consumption no matter what abv the whisky is which i am drinking, and i would think most single malt whisky drinkers will be more aware of ABV levels than most drinkers of blends and other spirits. Without a doubt you loose some of the flavour profile when the ABV is lowered to 40% and most SMW drinkers would agree with that i think.

When i am having a session trying lots of malts, it is small measures i am having.

In an ideal world all all single malt whisky would be bottled at 50%, non chill filtered and have no added colouring.

[William]

[Keith]

[Tom W]

46% is perfect - the minimum to prevent cloudiness in non-chill filtered whisky. A nice drinking strength but also a nice strength to add a bit of water to also.
_________________
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king

[nitram]

[Forbes]

IMO there is definitely a difference in the whisky ABV being reduced by the producer and reducing it yourself. For example i have watered down the Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength until by my estimates it would have been 40% abv like the standard 10 year old bottling and the Laphroaig CS was still far superior taste wise. So i would definitely love to see more 46% - 50% bottlings especially if they are non chill filtered, i wouldnt mind paying a couplke of pound more for them.

[Alastair]

A excellent of example of how whisky can be improved is Burn Stewart Distillers when they stopped chill filtering and increased the ABV of there single malt whisky brands resulting in hugely improved whiskies which previously i wouldnt really go near. Their brands include Deanston, Bunnahabhain, Tobermory and Ledaig which are now all very drinkable whiskies. Others could do with learning from Burn Stewart Distillers.

[James T]

[GJLReid]

One of the terms I constantly hear on here and amongst other whisky enthuisasts is chill filtered and no added colouring. As a relative beginner, firstly Im not too sure what kind of affect this has on the whisky, and also it appears to me as I look for new whisky that most bottles that I encounter are not chillfiltered or have added colouring...yet everyone seems to state that it is common. What well known bottles are chillfiltered/ have added colouring? I assume they are poor bottles?

Regarding ABV, my strongest whisky has been Clynelish 16 (46%) which I was very happy (2nd favourite) behind the weaker strength HP12 (40%) and slightly weaker Talisker 10 (45.8%). Although admitedly all three are very close in terms of my favourite. Also, I do not add water to any whisky, at what point should I? Does it really make a big different? Also, how much would you add?

Sorry for all the newbie questions!
G

[Big Mac]

No problem GJLReid, if you don't ask you wont know.
Basically chill filtering removes flavor and caramel colouring adds a artificial caramel flavor.

[Alexppp]

GJLReid: As Mac said most of the 'big' whiskies have added colouring and chill-filtration, but honestly I think the colouring doesn't matter very much in most cases. Apart from cases where distillers are heavy-handed with it, I'm convinced it's undetectable on the palate. The mind can play strange tricks, so when people know that a certain whisky has had caramel colouring, they might 'detect' something that's not necessarily there. I really don't think you can detect it in Talisker, for example (all Taliskers have it), or Lagavulin.

I would, however, like to see natural colouring in all whiskies just as a matter of aesthetics - because in most cases right now, the colour of a whisky tells you absolutely nothing other than the amount of caramel added! Off the top of my head, Highland Park doesn't add caramel, and neither do Macallan and Glengoyne, out of the mainstream distilleries I can think of, and there are others of course.

Chill-filtration is also an aesthetic decision but this time it does undeniably play a part in both flavour and texture. However, it doesn't mean that un-chill filtered whiskies are automatically better - a good whisky is a good whisky. For example, I still haven't had an un-chill filtered whisky better than Talisker 18 or Highland Park 18. (both chill-filtered)

[Carson]