opinionated alchemist

When I went recently for shopping for booze, a couple of products just stick out. There was Ferdinand Quince Gin (which is rather a liqueur - didn't tried it yet - but as soon as I do, I will definitely post it here) - and there was Plymouth Navy Strength. Truth has to be told: I was always a bit bored by the normal Plymouth. They usually give you the whole story, that Plymouth is a specific gin, made with softer water (...), but at the end, it taste like a London dry gin, if nobody tells you otherwise and its rather "pathetic" strength of just above 41% pales against my preferred gins. I have to honest: I am a bit "concerned" about the whole gin craze. I do get it: gin is more flavourful than vodka; and it is great to have a couple of different styles of gins in your bar. But do we need gin bars? And/or do we need a dozen or more different gins? Is it more smoke and mirrors than anything else? I would say yes! And yes - if you compare them sid...

In my old blog, I posted a long time ago some common complaints, when it comes to spirit competitions: usually the spirit companies have to pay for their participation [so small companies usually don't compete], they have also to offer their product free of charge to the tasting panel. And to believe, that these competitions are independent, is analogue to the belief, that their is a tooth fairy. And then there are so many competitions [it is a lucrative business to do this competitions due to the participation fees] and usually there is no clear winners but a lot of gold medals, double gold medals [WTF is double gold??] as well as silver and bronze and so on. But even if everything would be utopian fair - there would be one point, which cannot be neglected: it is quite easy to judge a quality of spirit - but to make a ranking is almost impossible [at least not a fair ranking]. It becomes obvious, if you just take a rather small category: Scotch Single Malts: there is a grea...