Confession time Socialites. Just got back from a little vaca in Florida and I’m feel a little under the weather. The reason being is that last night at the Hard Rock Casino in Fort Lauderdale, I lost a little bit of money in cards and decided it would be a good idea to match that amount of money in the amount of complimentary Macallan I drank at the VIP lounge. Goal accomplished, but still, very bad idea. Needless to say, my opinion on anything Scotch-related cannot be trusted at this particular time.
On that note, Scotch in a can. Yes, those who don’t have the $50 or $60 to splurge on a bottle of Scotland’s finest can now get their whiskey fix for a measly $5 in the same vessel used to shotgun a Natty Light. As an avid Scotch drinker, both for pleasure and for taking vengeance on casinos, this sounds really fishy. It might be the hangover talking, but I’m legitimately sick just thinking about it. Excuse me.
The company is Scottish Spirits, and corporate exec Ken Rubenfeld says that the can fact is nothing something that should be tied into quality at all. Just another way to transport liquor. Fair fact. A lot of the classier beer companies have experimented with cans instead of bottles, and by blocking more sunlight, a can is actually supposed to do a better job of preserving flavor. What Rubenfeld banks on however is that somebody wants to sit and drink 8 shots of Scotch in one sitting without the capability of closing the container. One of the reasons Beer is in a can, and generally no other alcoholic beverage, is because cracking 1 won’t render you unable to climb a flight of stairs.
A few more things that strike me as odd. First, the Scotch comes in two varieties, Blended and Single Grain. For those unfamiliar, Single Grain (Glenlivet, Macallan) means the scotch was made using only one batch and variety of ingredients, while Blended scotches (Johnny Walker, Dewars) combine scotches made from different varieties of Barley. I’m a Single Grain fan but to each his own.
The thing that strikes me as odd however is that Scottish Spirits is somehow offering both. Johnny Walker, as huge a company as it is, does not make Single Grain whiskey. Macallan does not make blended whiskey. It’s usually one or the other, which is a question of choice and a question of the way your process is laid and your facilities. It’s like those places in the city that serve Mexican food and also Sushi. I don’t know about you but I steer clear of those places like I steer clear of girls wearing “DTF” t-shirts.
Secondly, Scottish Spirits’ Scotch is aged 3 years according to the proud declaration on the can. I don’t know about you bit I’ve never in my life come across a bottle of decent Scotch that was aged for any less that 10 years. Macallan’s and Glenlivet’s 12-years are their lowest priced bottles. Also, $5 for 12-ounces? I generally pay around $10 for an ounce and a half. I don’t know about you guys but it sounds to me like this Scotch is a pretty good match for it’s stigmatized vessel of choice. I agree that can’s don’t matter but they do matter when the contents are not only crappy but the kind of contents you might want to have the ability to reseal halfway or even a third of the way through. Nice thought, big fail. I’m gonna go puke.