A covered bottle can make a quiet tasting suddenly feel like a quiz. “Is this rye? Is it old? Have I had this before?” Those are interesting questions, but you do not need to guess a label to learn from a blind glass. The first success is describing it without borrowing the bottle's story.
Decide What Is Hidden
A blind comparison can conceal brand and price while revealing the broad category and serving strength. A more open identification exercise may conceal all of those. Write down what the taster knows. A choice among three named bottles is a different task from identifying any whiskey in the world.
Burton's wine text makes the case for blind tasting as a way to examine the wine rather than its reputation. Its general discipline transfers usefully; this course builds whiskey-specific practice around it. Burton, The Concise Guide to Wine and Blind Tasting, second edition (2016), chapter 4, “Why blind taste wine?” — literature note.
Learn A Family, Not A Password
Typicity asks how a sample relates to a specified style or reference set. Build that set from several producers and lots, not a single favorite bottle. Include examples that stretch your expectations. A rye-forward impression may be worth recording, but “spicy” is not a mash-bill measurement. Similar descriptions can emerge from different production histories.
The diagram's overlapping groups show why resemblance can guide a hypothesis without settling an identity. In the glass you observe a combined result of raw materials, fermentation, distillation, maturation, blending and serving. To establish a legal category, producer, age or recipe, look for documentary evidence after the tasting.
Keep three questions beside your notes: What does it resemble? How might it have been made? What does the record establish? They invite different kinds of answer. A smoky resemblance can make an origin worth considering without establishing it. Polger explores the difference between sensory likeness and classification; Sweeney asks how qualities associated with Islay can be expressive without serving as an identity test. Polger, pp. 187–192, and Sweeney, pp. 293–296 — literature note
What Does A Plate Count Tell You?
Imagine two producers describe their stills with the same number of plates. You have learned something about the equipment, but you still need to ask how it operates. On a tray, rising vapor contacts flowing liquid; the extent of that contact depends on the design and conditions. A theoretical stage is a model of separation, not another complete run through a pot still.
Try separating three statements: “This column has a stated number of trays”; “it achieves a measured separation under specified conditions”; and “its whiskey will taste a particular way.” The first is an equipment description, the second needs performance evidence, and the third needs evidence connecting production to the finished whiskey. That distinction helps turn a production story into a useful question.
Olujić, printed pp. 2, 5–6 / PDF 17, 20–21 — Literature Note
Give The Runner-Up A Fair Hearing
Write a leading explanation and a plausible alternative. Then ask what observation supports each and what information would help distinguish them. Suppose an unknown sample has strong mint-like aroma, toasted oak and a drying finish. Rye whiskey may be one hypothesis; a rye-containing bourbon may be another. The exact producer and age remain open.
The Court of Master Sommeliers' wine conclusion guide is useful as an example of giving reasons for candidate identities. Our whiskey exercise borrows that habit of reasoning, not its wine-specific identity scheme. CMS, Deductive Tasting Initial & Final Conclusion Guide (March 2024), printed p. 2.
A Clue That Lost Its Exclusivity
A historical investigation offers a useful puzzle. A report reproduced in Aaron Barker's Whisky Words describes researchers who connected certain chemical products with direct-fire distillation. Then similar products appeared in spirit made with a steam jacket. The report also says furfural was found in grain whisky after being treated as characteristic of pot-still whisky. The observation could remain while the claim of an exclusive origin had to change.
Try stating the revised conclusion: “Finding this feature is consistent with my explanation, but it does not identify that explanation on its own.” What further evidence would separate the alternatives? This is a historical example of reasoning, not a modern chemical identification test. “The Chemistry of Whisky,” as reproduced in Barker — supplied PDF 25–27
Learn Something From The Reveal
Lock the original note before uncovering the bottle. Add the revealed information underneath, with its source: label, producer specification or supplied sample key. If your guess was wrong, ask whether the description was still useful. A good description with a cautious hypothesis can teach more than a lucky brand call.
Over several sessions, keep track of which categories you confuse and which examples were missing from your practice. Do not silently rewrite “maybe rye” as “obviously bourbon” after seeing the label. The difference between those two sentences is precisely where the learning lives.
A Blind Exercise Without A Bottle
Read the mint-and-oak example again. Write one observation, two candidate explanations, and one piece of evidence you would seek next. Give a confidence label and its reason. Compare your answer with this: “Mint-like aroma is clear; rye and rye-containing bourbon are both plausible; I would check the label/category and production information after the blind record is complete.”
With a helper and actual samples, use a short coded comparison from a declared category set. Keep the same preparation, work independently and reveal only after recording. Make the goal a reasoned account, not the most impressive guess.
A Confidence Label Belongs To A Claim
Separate “I clearly noticed mint” from “this is probably rye.” Repeated mint-like impressions can strengthen the first statement while leaving the second uncertain. Write a leading explanation, a credible alternative and the documentary evidence that would settle factual identity. On reveal, record what was supported, contradicted or still unknown. A correct label guessed without a supporting record does not demonstrate the same skill as a well-reasoned interpretation.
Keep exploring: Method and printable record · Course overview · Previous lesson · Next lesson: Comparative Trials and Evidence