Loch Fyne Whiskies - Scotch Whisky Review

I’ll have a piece of the excellent Loch Fyne Whisky Fudge. A sugar and whisky rush should stimulate the inspiration, surely? The only other option is to consult Eno’s Oblique Strategies for a possible approach and the best that it can come up with is “Courage!” and it’s far too early for a beer. Fudge it is.

I’d never paid much attention to the back of a Loch Fyne Whisky Fudge packet before. It says:

fudge, what does it mean?

fudge n.

1. a slightly grainy soft confection traditionally made from sugar, butter, milk, cream and flavourings (such as the world’s finest Scotch whisky).

2. foolishness, nonsense.

3. an unsatisfactory compromise reached to avoid controversy or difficulties.

This packet contains one of the above. Buy it to find out which.

[It goes on to suggest: for more fudge of all kinds, visit www.lfw.co.uk—this article is now part of that confection—Ed.]

Now ... what if we took the recent SWA labelling guidelines and applied the Critical Fudge Definition Test to them? Which one would best apply?

The whole procedure was an attempt to paper over the cracks exposed by l’affaire Cardhu. The one good thing to come out of that fiasco was how it demonstrated that whisky’s labelling and definitions were hopelessly vague. Have you ever noticed how few blends actually say they’re blends? They’d rather call themselves “Ancient”, “Superior Old”, “Finest” etc.

Malts are equally confusing. “Pure malt” was assumed to mean “vatted malt”. That’s what the vatted Cardhu called itself, but single malts such as Glen Grant, Glenfiddich and Glenlivet also used variations on the pure theme on their labels.

To give the SWA committee credit their proposals have tightened things up. No extra maturation outside Scotland, no bottling outside Scotland (of malt initially. Expect the same proposal for blends to be quietly dropped). If a regional name is used then it must apply to 100% of the whisky, so the end of the Islay finish. Hurrah!

The proposals also state that a distillery name should not be used on any Scotch whisky which has not been distilled at that named distillery. Exceptions will be made for whiskies which carry the names of long defunct stills as there will be no stock on the market (apart from in Italy of course). So, Springbank can continue with Hazelburn and Longrow; Edradour with Ballechin; and Bruichladdich with Port Charlotte. There might be problems however for brands whose names suggest they are distilleries: Finlaggan, for example, or Ardnave.

So far, so good. On the fudge definition test, this is option 1, a fairly soft and pleasant confection. Then we run into problems.

Under the proposals there will be two categories of whisky: single or blended. ‘Single’ will comprise Single Malt or Single Grain. ‘Blended’ will cover Blended Grain, Blended Scotch (malt and grain) and Blended Malt. Pure, Vatted, Vintage etc., are banned.

Let’s rewind. This was meant to stop confusion between categories? As far as I can work out the SWA admitted there was a problem over definitions and therefore a need to differentiate clearly between categories, but then it contrived to blur the difference between blended Scotch and vatted malt! That’s some achievement.

“Everyone agrees with us,” they said when I put this to them. So I asked as near to everyone as I could. No-one thought it a good idea. In fact, everyone thought that the term blended malt would potentially cause more confusion.

It is an issue of provenance. Since the 1850s, ‘blend’ has meant a mix of grain and malt whiskies. Now, apparently, it can mean a mix of malts as well. Try explaining that...

The scene. A shop in Inveraray.

Punter, holding bottle of The Loch Fyne®: “So this is a blend?

Shopkeeper: “Yep,’s a blend.”

Punter, picking up a bottle of The Living Cask™: “And this is a blend as well?

Shopkeeper: “We-e-ell, yes... It’s a blend of Malts

Punter: “And the Loch Fyne?”

Shopkeeper: “That’s a Blend, (of malt and grain).”

Punter: “So they’re both blends?”

Shopkeeper: “Yes, but very different kinds of blends.”

Punter: “Why is one Blend £15 and the other blend £139?”

Shopkeeper: “Can I interest you in some fudge?”

If a new term was needed to differentiate vatted malts from single malts then why not.. hmm, let me see.. vatted? It too has provenance. “Oh no,” said the SWA. “Vatted malt isn’t understood. We’d have to tell people what it meant.” Aye, but they don’t understand what blended malt means either as you’ve just made it up, so the same process of education will have to take place, will it not? Apparently not. “Vatted didn’t research well,” was the riposte. Quite what this research was I know not. Friends in the golf club? The waiter at the end of a long lunch?

The fact remains that taking terminology which has always meant one thing and then applying it to another is not normally regarded as the best way to stop confusion and, as far as I can remember, the whole point of setting up this group was to stop the confusion.

Perhaps I’m too close to the industry. I’m sure the research was done in a professional manner. Maybe vatted isn’t the right word. Neither is blended malt though. If a third way is needed, why not call vatted malts, “malt” and single malts “single malts”? Then, blends can be called “blends”. That’s pretty clear differentiation is it not? In wine, a blend is often labelled as “product of more than one region”, so why can’t a vatted malt state that it is “a product of more than one distillery” in small type?

So .. the final test. I’d say that this latest packet of SWA fudge contains each of the critical fudge definitions. It has nonsensical elements, it is certainly an unsatisfactory compromise and manages also to have elements of a slightly grainy soft confection.

Yet as we all know, fudge is bad for you.

Eat too much of it and it leaves you toothless.