Content
Citation(s) & Footnote(s)
Book(s)Whiskey Knowledge Library / Literature Notes
Main contribution
The article juxtaposes producers who value unfiltered texture with producers who tailor filtration to their desired profile and bottle stability. It reports a producer's blind comparison of several treatments.
Evidence and limitations
The reported comparison lacks enough design detail to infer a general effect. A claimed 46% threshold is not a universal guarantee for every whisky and condition. Sensory weight cannot simply be assigned to 'barrel oils,' and unfiltered labeling alone does not demonstrate superiority.
Application to the academy
Record filtration alongside proof and other process metadata. If testing it, use matched source spirit, controlled treatment, blinded samples, and a separate preference question. Do not award a blanket quality bonus for non-chill filtration.
Scope and locator status
This note covers the supplied web capture, not an entire magazine issue. Use the article title and section headings for public citation; PDF sequence is an internal retrieval aid, not a printed page number. Sticky navigation obscures some lines in the capture, so final coverage verification remains open. Full PDF text and attachments remain private.
Final file QA — 2026-09-20
- All 8 supplied pages open, extract, and render.
- No inaccessible or blank source page was found.
- The article’s 46% chill-filtration threshold and incomplete study descriptions remain qualified; readable source text does not establish a universal cutoff or causal result.
