YOU SAY POTATO Here’s an email from Dave Broom, the only opinionated whisky writer worth reading (come to think of it, the only opinionated whisky writer...) I see Bell's new incarnation is "a rich blend of pure malts" Can they make things any more confusing?? Discuss - d I wasn’t going to, but in discussion this morning (while asking if he knew anything about ‘Crocodile’ Dundee plc—he didn’t) Dave goaded me further. He was working on a piece about the categories of Scotch and would be arguing for the elimination of ‘pure’, leaving ‘single’, ‘vatted’ and ‘blended’ as the primary definitions—with a further set of regulations, clauses & sub-definers clearly identifying authentic ‘singles’ (those named from the distillery of origin) or those bogus, non-attributable singles with non-attributable names. Bogus ‘singles’ should not be allowed to be called ‘singles’ but ‘pure’... and so on. Amongst other things, he proposes a quality ‘kite-mark’ that only the ‘pure’est ‘single’-‘singles’ could carry. All with the aim of simplifying things for you lot, the punters. Feeling mischievous I argued that, in the lay dictionary, there was nothing better than ‘pure’, and so more attractive than ‘single’ which is meaningless (and anyway only half as good as a ‘double’). I countered that ‘single’ should be phased out, but not before ‘vatted’ (which half the whisky drinking world pronounces ‘watted’); though ‘vatted’ could be permissible when describing the vatting of various casks (or ‘singles’?) from a ‘single’ distillery prior to bottling (as a ‘pure’ or ‘single’ but not as a ‘single-single’). I have no problem with ‘a blend of pure malts’; it’s a blend of pure malts—but it is time to work the whole thing out. Bad Boys this edition? The usual suspects: Allied, Bacardi & Pernod—no malt activity; and the numpties at Macallan— too much too fast—again. They won’t give us (the UK) the latest replica—sorry, you can be justifiably pissed-off.