Is wine cellar diversity all it is cracked up to be

[Gregory_Dal_Piaz]

Diversity is what offlines were for. Those crazy big ones we did once upon a time, with themes loosely adhered to, and more wines than was reasonable to taste, though not Paulee style, just mostly modest cellar treasures and wines to outgeek each other with.

Ummm. Bubbe, we still do those on occasion. You just stopped coming.

Well, as I said, see you soon! Just need a little shot of the good stuff first.

[Joseph_Grassa]

I prefer Blanton’s and Weller 12 for daily drinking and I have multiples of most collectible bourbon in existence including cases of Stitzel-Weller PVW. If I want to relax after work with bourbon I don’t necessarily want the most powerful or complex whisky.

This is sort of like opening grand cru on a daily basis. Many of us could do it if we wanted, but they aren’t necessarily the best wine for the situation. Drinking well or better doesn’t necessarily mean drinking more expensive or rare wines, it means drinking the best wine for the situation.

then perhaps we are not disagreeing on anything. I prefer Blantons to any newer W12s as well, but I prefer Blantons gold and if I always had a bottle openned, I would rarely want regularly Blantons. I personally cannot afford to do that, nor do I think it is productive and beneficial in the long term. I really just suggest trying an experiment like I mentioned or any other in the same vein to see what you think.

I don’t really agree. I have lots of blantons gold and sftb and still prefer the regular for daily drinking.

I think the push towards high ABV cask/barrel strength bottling in the name of flavor is just like the push for hoppier IPAs and higher ABV beers. There’s literally nothing wrong with 40-43% ABV and ppl that think there is have probably toasted their tastebuds with higher proof spirits.

I agree. For the sake of heat alone makes no sense. Some of my favorite whiskeys are 90 proof, and some of them are 130+. Really depends on the whiskey if you ask me. It just became a fad that everything had to be “cask strength”, “barrel proof”…

[Sarah_Kirschbaum]

It just became a fad that everything had to be “cask strength”, “barrel proof”…

No, cask strength is not a fad. Blended whisky came to the forefront of the market to replicate cognac when phylloxera took that away, so low 40s was desirable. It was blended to be tame at that time. But then the helpless lovers of whisky began independently bottling casks in the '60s and '70s. It hasn’t stopped since. If you want to call decades a fad, so be it. The whisky nuts have been preserving at cask strength for a reason.

Note that I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with lower test. I also don’t like ultra high proof that the sprit can’t handle. But the “fad” is the marketing push of “wood science” and fancy names for NAS and hyper designed labels because there are fewer and fewer old casks of quality available, and it takes 15 years to make a 15 year whisky. Whether you prefer cask strength is up to you. And not every cask is up to it. I personally have never had a 40% - and I’ve had some great ones - where I haven’t wondered how good it might have been if it hadn’t been watered down. That’s my preference. But it isn’t a fad.

This really belongs in another forum - happy to discuss if you want to move over to the Beer & Spirits Forum. FWIW, I agree with both of you that the best wine for the situation isn’t always the most complex high end wine. A simple rose or bourgogne blanc or albarino may be more appropriate to the situation, or my mood and attention span, than a Montrachet 6 out of 8 times.

[MChang]

It just became a fad that everything had to be “cask strength”, “barrel proof”…

No, cask strength is not a fad. Blended whisky came to the forefront of the market to replicate cognac when phylloxera took that away, so low 40s was desirable. It was blended to be tame at that time. But then the helpless lovers of whisky began independently bottling casks in the '60s and '70s. It hasn’t stopped since. If you want to call decades a fad, so be it. The whisky nuts have been preserving at cask strength for a reason.

Note that I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with lower test. I also don’t like ultra high proof that the sprit can’t handle. But the “fad” is the marketing push of “wood science” and fancy names for NAS and hyper designed labels because there are fewer and fewer old casks of quality available, and it takes 15 years to make a 15 year whisky. Whether you prefer cask strength is up to you. And not every cask is up to it. I personally have never had a 40% - and I’ve had some great ones - where I haven’t wondered how good it might have been if it hadn’t been watered down. That’s my preference. But it isn’t a fad.

This really belongs in another forum - happy to discuss if you want to move over to the Beer & Spirits Forum. FWIW, I agree with both of you that the best wine for the situation isn’t always the most complex high end wine. A simple rose or bourgogne blanc or albarino may be more appropriate to the situation, or my mood and attention span, than a Montrachet 6 out of 8 times.

Sarah I don’t disagree with you regarding scotch but ABV for ABV sake seems to be a bigger issue in bourbon. Stagg jr at 144 proof lately is a good example; all the bourbon bloggers were raving about “so much flavor”… smh. I think 45-55% is great and I
might agree that 40.0% abv could be a bit light for some bottlings, but 72% resembles jet fuel to me.

I think some cask strength scotch bottlings like the 90-00s macallan cask strength were superb even if NAS, though.

[Sarah_Kirschbaum]

It just became a fad that everything had to be “cask strength”, “barrel proof”…

No, cask strength is not a fad. Blended whisky came to the forefront of the market to replicate cognac when phylloxera took that away, so low 40s was desirable. It was blended to be tame at that time. But then the helpless lovers of whisky began independently bottling casks in the '60s and '70s. It hasn’t stopped since. If you want to call decades a fad, so be it. The whisky nuts have been preserving at cask strength for a reason.

Note that I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with lower test. I also don’t like ultra high proof that the sprit can’t handle. But the “fad” is the marketing push of “wood science” and fancy names for NAS and hyper designed labels because there are fewer and fewer old casks of quality available, and it takes 15 years to make a 15 year whisky. Whether you prefer cask strength is up to you. And not every cask is up to it. I personally have never had a 40% - and I’ve had some great ones - where I haven’t wondered how good it might have been if it hadn’t been watered down. That’s my preference. But it isn’t a fad.

This really belongs in another forum - happy to discuss if you want to move over to the Beer & Spirits Forum. FWIW, I agree with both of you that the best wine for the situation isn’t always the most complex high end wine. A simple rose or bourgogne blanc or albarino may be more appropriate to the situation, or my mood and attention span, than a Montrachet 6 out of 8 times.

Sarah I don’t disagree with you regarding scotch but ABV for ABV sake seems to be a bigger issue in bourbon. Stagg jr at 144 proof lately is a good example; all the bourbon bloggers were raving about “so much flavor”… smh. I think 45-55% is great and I
might agree that 40.0% abv could be a bit light for some bottlings, but 72% resembles jet fuel to me.

I think some cask strength scotch bottlings like the 90-00s macallan cask strength were superb even if NAS, though.

No question that ABV for ABV’s sake is lamentable, and the ideal ABV varies from spirit to spirit. I wanted only to correct the notion that cask strength is a fad. There are many fads today in whisky and whiskEy, but bottling at cask strength isn’t one of them.

There were some decent high proof Macallans during that period, but things were already starting to go down a slippery slope there. It’s possible to make a good NAS whisky, but what’s happening in the industry isn’t driven by devotion to quality. I’ve posted extensively about this in the other forum, so I’ll leave it at that.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Over the past year or so, there has been many times I looked through our holdings and came away feeling bored; that tells me I need more diversity, so I will be looking to make diversification a buying goal of 2021.

Folks should have as much, or little, diversity as pleases them, and nobody should care one bit about the level of diversity of another’s holdings.

[James_Billy]

Over the past year or so, there has been many times I looked through our holdings and came away feeling bored; that tells me I need more diversity, so I will be looking to make diversification a buying goal of 2021.

Folks should have as much, or little, diversity as pleases them, and nobody should care one bit about the level of diversity of another’s holdings.

That’s one of the purposes of a cellar for me. Buy stuff that will keep - trying to find a balance between what you know you love and pushing the boundaries a little with new things you think you like, but aren’t 100% sure you really love. It takes time to acquire new tastes and we can never be sure how much we really like something without giving it a go. Leave it. Then return to it later and be pleasantly surprised you have it. If I buy stuff and drink it immediately or I have a limited cellar of wines I know well I won’t have this surprise factor very often when I’m looking for a new bottle.

But that’s just me and there’s no right answer. Just do what suits you. Drink what you choose to.

We’re all different. Isn’t that great?

[Otto_Forsberg]

I’ve never understood why cask strength would be a problem. Sure, most cask strength spirits - especially those on the higher end of the scale - tend to be almost undrinkably hot, but I invariably tone them down myself with a dash of cool water. However, with the cask strength bottles I can choose myself what is the sweet spot and I never water them down to 40%, which is often too dilute. And this way a single bottle lasts even normal than a whisky / whiskey / bourbon clocking at 40% ABV.

I’ve even noticed that Stagg Jr. doesn’t offer that much flavor if not watered down - it is just very hot and flavor-wise rather closed if sipped raw. Water it down to 55% range and it really seems to open up flavor-wise - tasting a glass of cask strength and a slightly watered-down glass shows really a huge change in both drinkability and intensity.

[Joseph_Grassa]

No, cask strength is not a fad. Blended whisky came to the forefront of the market to replicate cognac when phylloxera took that away, so low 40s was desirable. It was blended to be tame at that time. But then the helpless lovers of whisky began independently bottling casks in the '60s and '70s. It hasn’t stopped since. If you want to call decades a fad, so be it. The whisky nuts have been preserving at cask strength for a reason.

Note that I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with lower test. I also don’t like ultra high proof that the sprit can’t handle. But the “fad” is the marketing push of “wood science” and fancy names for NAS and hyper designed labels because there are fewer and fewer old casks of quality available, and it takes 15 years to make a 15 year whisky. Whether you prefer cask strength is up to you. And not every cask is up to it. I personally have never had a 40% - and I’ve had some great ones - where I haven’t wondered how good it might have been if it hadn’t been watered down. That’s my preference. But it isn’t a fad.

This really belongs in another forum - happy to discuss if you want to move over to the Beer & Spirits Forum. FWIW, I agree with both of you that the best wine for the situation isn’t always the most complex high end wine. A simple rose or bourgogne blanc or albarino may be more appropriate to the situation, or my mood and attention span, than a Montrachet 6 out of 8 times.

Sarah I don’t disagree with you regarding scotch but ABV for ABV sake seems to be a bigger issue in bourbon. Stagg jr at 144 proof lately is a good example; all the bourbon bloggers were raving about “so much flavor”… smh. I think 45-55% is great and I
might agree that 40.0% abv could be a bit light for some bottlings, but 72% resembles jet fuel to me.

I think some cask strength scotch bottlings like the 90-00s macallan cask strength were superb even if NAS, though.

No question that ABV for ABV’s sake is lamentable, and the ideal ABV varies from spirit to spirit. I wanted only to correct the notion that cask strength is a fad. There are many fads today in whisky and whiskEy, but bottling at cask strength isn’t one of them.

There were some decent high proof Macallans during that period, but things were already starting to go down a slippery slope there. It’s possible to make a good NAS whisky, but what’s happening in the industry isn’t driven by devotion to quality. I’ve posted extensively about this in the other forum, so I’ll leave it at that.

I am not knocking cask strength in general. I am a huge fan of EH Taylor BP releases. I also agree that it is mostly marketing. Suddenly about 5 years ago everyone started making them in the bourbon world and most don’t really have the powerful flavors to balance it out, so they are just heat. I havent had a stagg jr in the 140s, but its hard to imagine it handling it.

[Joseph_Grassa]

I’ve never understood why cask strength would be a problem. Sure, most cask strength spirits - especially those on the higher end of the scale - tend to be almost undrinkably hot, but I invariably tone them down myself with a dash of cool water. However, with the cask strength bottles I can choose myself what is the sweet spot and I never water them down to 40%, which is often too dilute. And this way a single bottle lasts even normal than a whisky / whiskey / bourbon clocking at 40% ABV.

I’ve even noticed that Stagg Jr. doesn’t offer that much flavor if not watered down - it is just very hot and flavor-wise rather closed if sipped raw. Water it down to 55% range and it really seems to open up flavor-wise - tasting a glass of cask strength and a slightly watered-down glass shows really a huge change in both drinkability and intensity.

Generally I prefer to drink it as it was made, but it is interesting to see how the flavors change at different proofs and if it is too hot and not showing I don’t know any better options.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

I think the push towards high ABV cask/barrel strength bottling in the name of flavor is just like the push for hoppier IPAs and higher ABV beers. There’s literally nothing wrong with 40-43% ABV and ppl that think there is have probably toasted their tastebuds with higher proof spirits.

You are obviously free to.think whatever you want to think, but that doesn’t mean you’re actually correct. And, on this point, I think you’ve, at best, foolishly over-generalized what you’re talking about. Granted, I approach this from the world of whisky, so … yeah.

ETA: o.k., I read your subsequent post indicating this is more a Bourbon problem. Fair enough, as that is a topic about which I know extremely little. I’ll just continue to hope and pray that as few Bourbon lovers as possible make their way to whisky.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

It just became a fad that everything had to be “cask strength”, “barrel proof”…

No, cask strength is not a fad. Blended whisky came to the forefront of the market to replicate cognac when phylloxera took that away, so low 40s was desirable. It was blended to be tame at that time. But then the helpless lovers of whisky began independently bottling casks in the '60s and '70s. It hasn’t stopped since. If you want to call decades a fad, so be it. The whisky nuts have been preserving at cask strength for a reason.

Note that I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with lower test. I also don’t like ultra high proof that the sprit can’t handle. But the “fad” is the marketing push of “wood science” and fancy names for NAS and hyper designed labels because there are fewer and fewer old casks of quality available, and it takes 15 years to make a 15 year whisky. Whether you prefer cask strength is up to you. And not every cask is up to it. I personally have never had a 40% - and I’ve had some great ones - where I haven’t wondered how good it might have been if it hadn’t been watered down. That’s my preference. But it isn’t a fad.

This really belongs in another forum - happy to discuss if you want to move over to the Beer & Spirits Forum. FWIW, I agree with both of you that the best wine for the situation isn’t always the most complex high end wine. A simple rose or bourgogne blanc or albarino may be more appropriate to the situation, or my mood and attention span, than a Montrachet 6 out of 8 times.

Wish I could Thumbs Up Sarah’s post 10 times over.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Over the past year or so, there has been many times I looked through our holdings and came away feeling bored; that tells me I need more diversity, so I will be looking to make diversification a buying goal of 2021.

Folks should have as much, or little, diversity as pleases them, and nobody should care one bit about the level of diversity of another’s holdings.

That’s one of the purposes of a cellar for me. Buy stuff that will keep - trying to find a balance between what you know you love and pushing the boundaries a little with new things you think you like, but aren’t 100% sure you really love. It takes time to acquire new tastes and we can never be sure how much we really like something without giving it a go. Leave it. Then return to it later and be pleasantly surprised you have it. If I buy stuff and drink it immediately or I have a limited cellar of wines I know well I won’t have this surprise factor very often when I’m looking for a new bottle.

But that’s just me and there’s no right answer. Just do what suits you. Drink what you choose to.

We’re all different. Isn’t that great?

Well-said. As for your parting line: my signature is a very wry quote commenting on the same.

[MChang]

I think the push towards high ABV cask/barrel strength bottling in the name of flavor is just like the push for hoppier IPAs and higher ABV beers. There’s literally nothing wrong with 40-43% ABV and ppl that think there is have probably toasted their tastebuds with higher proof spirits.

You are obviously free to.think whatever you want to think, but that doesn’t mean you’re actually correct. And, on this point, I think you’ve, at best, foolishly over-generalized what you’re talking about. Granted, I approach this from the world of whisky, so … yeah.

ETA: o.k., I read your subsequent post indicating this is more a Bourbon problem. Fair enough, as that is a topic about which I know extremely little. I’ll just continue to hope and pray that as few Bourbon lovers as possible make their way to whisky.

I think it’s generally a bourbon problem. You still have stuff like macallan classic cut which tries to act like it’s the rebirth of the fantastic cask strength.

That said, I do enjoy some bottlings that purists might dislike like macallan rare cask.

For spirits I’m probably brandy > bourbon > scotch/Irish atm if that helps explain my palate preferences.

[crickey]

Re: diversity. What can I say: I’m sort of a slut. I like trying new things. This past year, I added to my cellar (in some volume): champagne, Oregon pinot, Loire chenin and dry German Riesling. Could I have stuck with what I had and been happy? Probably. But I wanted to try something new.

Re: cask strength. For bourbon, it’s (i) definitely a marketing ploy and (ii) definitely detrimental. I’ve tried some on the assumption that it was “special,” and all it did was ruin what made bourbon good.

[RichardFlack]

The only reason I can see having diversity in the wine cellar for the sake of diversity is so that guests can drink something that may not align with your tastes.

Do you eat the same food every day?

[James_Billy]

Over the past year or so, there has been many times I looked through our holdings and came away feeling bored; that tells me I need more diversity, so I will be looking to make diversification a buying goal of 2021.

Folks should have as much, or little, diversity as pleases them, and nobody should care one bit about the level of diversity of another’s holdings.

That’s one of the purposes of a cellar for me. Buy stuff that will keep - trying to find a balance between what you know you love and pushing the boundaries a little with new things you think you like, but aren’t 100% sure you really love. It takes time to acquire new tastes and we can never be sure how much we really like something without giving it a go. Leave it. Then return to it later and be pleasantly surprised you have it. If I buy stuff and drink it immediately or I have a limited cellar of wines I know well I won’t have this surprise factor very often when I’m looking for a new bottle.

But that’s just me and there’s no right answer. Just do what suits you. Drink what you choose to.

We’re all different. Isn’t that great?

Well-said. As for your parting line: my signature is a very wry quote commenting on the same.

Ha! I don’t often read signatures, but that’s good!

[RichardFlack]

A exceptionally-wise man once asked me, “How many times do you need to try a wine before you know you don’t like it?”

Mutatis mutandis…

[RichardFlack]

So my cellar being 92% USA is okay?

Anagram the last word.

[RichardFlack]

A exceptionally-wise man once asked me, “How many times do you need to try a wine before you know you don’t like it?”

Indecisive as I am, sometimes five or ten times. You can never be sure.

Reminds me slightly of Hugh Johnson’s rating scale … 2 sniffs = faint interest, or disbelief. The latter phrase reminds us he would probably encounter more oddities than most of us.