What's Your Whisk(e)y ABV Sweet Spot?

A discussion over in the Wine Forum made me want to pose this question. For those who enjoy whisky or whiskey or other spirits, do you have an ABV level that you look for or like the best? Not necessarily a number, though that’s great, but also just high proof versus low or blended versus cask strength? Or cask strength with a healthy splash of water?

In our house, we mostly drink cask scotch and high proof gin, like Martin Miller’s Westbourne. When trying new gins, the low 40s are much less interesting to me than a few notches up. We don’t water down our whisky, either, just a drop or two from time to time to help it open.

For scotch, I am probably most comfortable around ~55%, though of course that’s a huge generalization and it depends on the spirit. I do have a bias in that I prefer that cask strength not fall below 50%. At the high end of the spectrum, it’s tougher for a whisky to be balanced at 60%+ to me, though there are some stunning exceptions. (How on earth does the Glenfarclas 105 40 year come in at 60% in the first place, and do it with such elegance? Magic.) I don’t reject lower proof or blended out of hand - I’ve had some amazing bottles over the years - it’s just not usually my choice. As at the other end of the spectrum, it’s harder for a 40% to achieve depth and balance. As Jonathan puts it: just because Roy Orbison could open his mouth a crack and fill the room, not everyone can.

Fortunately, there are options at pretty much every level. I’d be curious to hear people’s preferences and also some examples of extremes at either end that folks feel transcend their ABVs.

me: googles Glenfarclas 105 40 year




for real, this should be a very instructive thread. i have nothing to contribute and everything to learn!

I bring it up because it’s a famous exception. I’ve only tasted it twice, both times at a bar on Orkney. That bottle had been open for years and had a low fill and it was still that great. Someday I hope to try it again. They only did it that once. Sigh.

I think somewhere around 45-47% is about right for me. I feel like pappy 15 at 107 and makers cask at 110 have just a little too much heat without a little water and stagg jr at 134-140 proof is just rocket fuel.

I do enjoy BIB whisky so 100 proof isn’t bad.

100 - 110 proof is my sweat spot for bourbon and rye.

Thanks for starting a new thread here as I was tempted to respond in the other forum but did not want to derail the thread further.

I do strongly prefer whiskies to be bottled at cask strength (without colorings and non chill filtered) which allows the flexibility to add water to reach a desired proof for drinking. Usually I don’t add water to higher proof whiskeys. The exception is for super high proof bourbons like George T. Stagg, although even with these sometimes it is exciting to be assaulted with their undiluted power. I don’t believe scotches reach such a high barrel proof, as I always assumed the super high proofs reached in older Rye and Bourbon were due to the climate in Kentucky rickhouses, though I am not an expert. A Balvenie Tun 1401 I enjoyed very much was an assemblage of older whiskys bottled at cask strength at 50.3% and it was excellent without water. Overall I’d say cask strength is best and over 50% ABV is good.

When I was dusty hunting for Bourbon years ago we would leave behind a lot of 40% ABV National Distillers Old Taylor on the shelf because the 43% ABV version was substantially better. You wouldn’t think 3% would make much difference, but it did.

For cocktails, higher proof is also preferred, but I think the issue is a little more subtle. A Sazerac with a cask strength rye is a different animal than a Sazerac made with Rittenhouse BIB. Of course the former can always be diluted by mixing longer. I find it difficult to make a good whiskey based cocktail with a base spirit below 50% ABV and certainly below 47%. I don’t think I ever made a good cocktail with Old Overholt for example at 40%. BIB at 50% is just about ideal for me for mixing a balanced cocktail.

I was highly disappointed to find out that recently Beefeater went from 47% ABV to 44% in the US. Time to find a new house gin.

As an aside, the different proof systems can make it difficult to speak the same language, as it’s different in the US, France and the UK.

Good point, I may edit my post above to stick with ABV. I was not aware of the differences.

No need, really. It’s usually pretty clear, and was in your post. Just sometimes irritating when dealing with imports and labels.

For white spirits, I like 47%. Hard to find for some. Not a scotch drinker, but I like 45-50% for bourbon

108 proof is my sweet spot

I gave a range because it depends on the whisky. Wood treatment can make a difference in taste at different proofs. But at >110 sometimes I feel a small cube can both open up the whisky and bring the palate into balance. Heresy I know.

I agree with this.

… crazy how complicated the answer can be to such a simple question!

This answer is strictly re: whisky.

Some comments about whiskies that were watered-back prior to bottling: generally, they’re not my thing, as I tend to find them too dilute. Some exceptions, most of which have QPR/value in mind: Aberlour 10; Laphroaig 10; Lagavulin 16; Highland Park 12; Clynelish 14; Cragganmore 12; Talisker 10; Longrow 18. … Longrow 18 is the obvious exception to the “value” comment; iirc, it’s watered-back to “only” 48% – more on that in a moment. I do find myself wondering just how good most of those would be at full cask strength. Laphroaig 10 c.s. is, possibly, my pinnacle of whisky. Is it the “finest”? No. But it’s perfect to/for me. I cannot imagine a whisky that more completely and exuberantly speaks of Islay. So, against that backdrop, I do find the watered-back/regular Laphroaig 10 to be noticeably lacking; that said, for $40, I think it’s a really nice dram, and it’s one where you’re not going to feel bad if you enjoy it without much thought.

ABV — it matters in this conversation. If something is watered-back to 40%, odds are virtually nil that I’ll be trying it for the first time on my own dime — at least, not an entire bottle. That’s not to say there aren’t some really nice watered-back 40% whiskies out there – I count Aberlour 10 among them. 46% is less offensive, and 48% is even better. I’ve come to realize that, until further notice, I can trust Signatory to have good bottlings, despite many of them having been watered-back to 46%, so I will consider them.

Longrow 18 — that’s at 48%. I would love to see a c.s. Longrow bottling, but I shudder to think how much it would cost, and I’m sure it would be too difficult for me to get my hands on. Nonetheless, it’s a really nice dram, but I tend to drink it neat, or literally with no more than 3 drops of water, as I feel it doesn’t take water very well; this tells me it would be better if it were closer to c.s…

As for my “sweet spot” — honestly, I’ve never thought about it. But, now that I am considering the question, my answer is, “I don’t have one,” per se. Different whiskies perform differently at any given abv level. I love the PC# series from Bruichladdich, but those suckers are damn strong (above 60%) — somehow, they manage to be dangerously delicious, even without water. (now might be a good time to emphasize that I take very small sips when tasting whisky — I don’t feel I need much liquid to enjoy the aromatics and flavors). Other whiskies, however, start getting fairly unruly around 53% to 55% — you never really know until you try.

Simply put, I want my whiskies to be bottled at an abv that is stronger than I find ideal for tasting, as this allows me to water it back to my desired level.

Not so very difficult, just a ticket to Philadelphia when this crap is over with!

Unsurprisingly, I’m in agreement with pretty much everything you wrote. It is a complicated question, and answering it requires huge generalization. Still a conversation worth having.

Sarah,

I think our tastes are similar.

I tend to prefer Navy Strength Gin down to about 47% which includes most of the traditional big brands. I have found the lower proof specialty botanical gins to be lacking.

I would prefer to drink whisky that is bottled at cask strength but I generally need a bit of water. I’m quite happy with some of the ‘everyday’ things bottled at 43% however.

With higher strength rye and bourbon I will nose it first neat but I’m going to drop a cube in most of them. I don’t drink the sort of special things you have in quantity all that often. Anything really special I will drink neat.

Most of the rums I’ve seen over 50% tend to be Agricole and a bit gassy so I will put a cube in those. Most of the limited sipping rums currently in the closet are 40-48%.

One thing I will always drink neat are cognacs and armagnacs.

I know your initial post was mainly about whiskey but you did bring up gin so I thought I’d cover the bases.

Cheers!

1 Like

Cask strength became popular because several distillery masters liked their whiskey that way. Then they would add water to their taste. I still like my Bourbon that way. With Scotch, I don’t mind them watering back as much.

Sarah,
Life permitting (and that’s always the challenge with me), I would greatly enjoy visiting you and yours. [cheers.gif]

I have to ask: who bottled the c.s. Longrow and how old was it at bottling? It blows my mind you have one.

We have a couple of different examples. The one I was thinking of is a distillery release, a 7yr distilled in 2000, aged in refill bourbon cask. It was finished for 1.5 years (IIRC) in a Barolo wine cask from Gaja, of all places. I’m not usually one to seek out wine cask finishes, but this one is very sexy at 55.8%. It was only done the once and I believe they got in a little trouble for advertising where the cask came from.

1 Like

Very cool. After I posted my question, I did have a recollection (invented, or otherwise … not quite sure) of a Longrow NAS c.s. distillery bottling. Sounds like you’re describing something else, however.