Jim Murray thumps the sulphur tub again!

[bifter]

Well the sulphur issue won't go away, at least not as long as Jim Murray sucks Kentucky air. In his latest Whisky Bible (2013) he lambasts the whisky industry for not addressing the sulphur-tainted sherry cask issue which he claims is now 'rampant' and spread worldwide. An article on Monday quotes him as saying:

[William]

Perhaps it is a case of drumming up publicity, he has got the Whisky Bible 2013 column space in the Daily Mail/Mail Online and i am sure other publications around the world with his condemnation of sulphur tainted whisky and his declaration that an American whisky is the best in the world in his opinion.

Is the problem of sulphur really so widespread or is it coming more to light with the increasing popularity of whisky and increased numbers of small batch or single cask bottlings where it may be more obvious to detect as the sulphur tainted cask hasnt been diluted in large vattings.

It is very wrong that the Daily Mail have used a picture of maturing Glenfiddich casks in an article about substandard sulphur tainted whisky, sulphur is not a problem or ever has been for any Glenfiddich bottlings to my knowledge.
_________________
There's no bad whisky. Just good whisky and better whisky.

[albo]

I'm confused by all this.

What to do? Don the tin hat and spout conspiracy theories.
The SMWS know they have a problem getting hold of decent casks at decent prices, so they start taking substandard casks to punt out to their customers, many of these are sulphur ridden, but they pass this off with marketing flannel. They get wind of the JM rant about sulphur and as a defence release an article which says people are lazy to write off sulphur notes, this just happens to coincide with the JM article.

JM writes something which calls into question the SWA in order to sell more of his books, knowing he has a large soap box to use and add to the sales of his book. The SWA deny this on the face of things, to save a scorn on their industry. However, deep down they love it, they know it will get more and more people to talking about whisky and trying different whisky to see if they can detect sulphur.

The distilleries have no way of knowing which casks are tainted and which are not, they may also have paid handsomely for a cask to find out it's tainted after first fill, but will they dump it and not reuse it? I'd say no, they will fill again and again, and use the contents to either ship off to somewhere like the SMWS who will buy sulphur tainted casks, or put them into blends.

In truth, probably some of all of the above are true, however, none of it will be as bad as any one party makes out.

Best thing I can do, is to keep drinking and enjoying this fine drink, keep opining in here to fellow like minded enthusiasts.

Some of the whisky is sulphur ridden, I don't like it, so I stay away from it. It's no biggie, it's not like I'm running out of bottle to try now is it.

[Brummie]

I have to say i have only ever detected traces of sulphur in independent small batch releases and never in mass produced core range bottlings of the big distilleries. Perhaps i am not as sensitive to sulphur as Jim Murray, if that is the case i am very happy about it.

Good point about the Glenfiddich picture in the daily mail article, if i was Glenfiddich i wouldnt be pleased.

[Alexppp]

[chrisg]

I have to say i havent come across any mainstream distillery bottlings that are tainted by sulphur.

Not got my copy of the new whisky bible yet but i will certainly be looking through it to see how many distillery core range bottlings he declares as sulphur tainted or will i find as others have said that this problem isnt as big as made out and is mainly a problem amongst limited edition small batch releases from both distillery and independent bottlers.

[bifter]

Some good points above.

As most here will know JM claims this problem began in the 1990s as a result of changes in the sherry denomination rules (which I won't go into here):

[Innes]

I was under the impression that sulphur candles are no longer used for preservation but there will be a whole lot of casks sitting in warehouses which were preserved using sulphur candles before the practice was stopped.

[Kava]

I have no doubt that there is a very small amount of sulphur tainted whiskies that get released but i really do think it is a small amount.

If Mr Murray thinks there is that a significant number of bottles are substandard then he should really back up his claim by listing/naming this significant number of substandard bottles. He is a powerful man and can effect whisky sales with his comments and by the way they get reported. Just look at the poorly written daily mail article, surely this will wrongly influence anyone reading it that does not know any better.

[Quaich1]

[quote="William"

[John]

[bifter]

[Crane]

I am sensitive to sulphur and hate it, i am also a very regular drinker of Glenfarclas 15, which Jim Murray fingered last year. Personally i have never come across a bottle of Glenfarclas 15 which was tainted, even slightly by sulphur. Obviously Jim had a different batch from the bottles i have been drinking (i get through approx 6 bottles of Glenfarclas 15 per year). I consider myself very familiar with the Glenfarclas 15 and as i have said i have never detected any hint of sulphur.

It will be interesting to see if he has revisited the Glenfarclas 15 in the 2013 edition and if he still finds some sulphur in it.

[bifter]

[Quaich1]