As many of you know, there’s a big debate going on right now about the proposed definition of what has, in the past, been called “vatted malts” (i.e., a marriage of single malt Scotch whiskies from two or more distilleries).  The category would now be called “Blended Malt.” It fits in between a single malt whisky (malt whisky from just one distillery) and a blended whisky (malt whisky from more than one distillery along with grain whisky).

I work with nearly all facets involved with whisky: producers (big and small), importers, wholesalers, retailers, bars, restaurants, trade groups, and the consumer. As an unbiased source, here are my thoughts on this issue. I will try to keep this as brief as possible.

Opponents to the new definition argue, among other things, that it tarnishes the highly-esteemed category of “single malt whisky” because most people will confuse “blended malt whisky” with ubiquitous “blended whisky.” I agree.

Some argue that the creation of a new Blended Malt category will be exploited by big whisky companies to fill in and expand this seldom-used category. Smaller producers also argue that the cost of changing labels, promotional materials, etc., will also be an undue burden for them.

I see where they are coming from, but I can also see a flip side.

In some ways, the new phrase Blended Malt whisky is actually logical in the context with Blended whisky and Single Malt whisky. I like that the same terminology is used. It’s easy to see (and logically understand) the transition from Single Malt whisky, to Blended Malt whisky (i.e. a blend of single malts) to Blended whisky (a blend of malt and grain whiskies). Everyone knows what the word “blend” means.

The phrase “vatted”, while all of us veterans know how this word has been used in the past and feel comfortable with it, isn’t inherently obvious how it fits in with the rest of the definitions. To me, it’s no less confusing. What’s more important to me is that a blend of malts, regardless of what you call it, isn’t called the same name as a distillery. A Macallan vatted malt will only lead to confusion, so will a Macallan blended malt.

Regarding the possible “exploitation” of the new Blended Malt category by the big boys, I don’t see it entirely as exploitation, but rather an opportunity to expand the Scotch whisky industry into an category that has been sadly ignored. I see this as a good thing for the producer and consumer.

What I really think the problem is, regardless of what categories and definitions are ultimately decided upon, is the the lack of global education supporting the category definitions.  The vast majority of people still don’t know what a blended scotch is, even though we drink millions of liters of the stuff every year. And they have no clue what a grain whisky is.

Instead of spending all this time and money pissing and moaning about what to call a category, let’s just agree on one already and join together in supporting a common cause to eradicate what I feel is the real problem here: ignorance and alienation. Without education, the fundamental problem with remain, regardless of what we end up calling a vatted malt.