| ▲ | One Man's Quest to Create the Perfect Whiskey Glass(nytimes.com) |
| 31 points by Kaibeezy 2 days ago | 18 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | mickeyp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Serious whisky collector (and drinker) here... You don't need a fancy glass. Your sense of smell makes a huge difference when it comes to food and drink, as anybody with a nasty cold can tell you. You want something that keeps it from diffusing into the air so anything with a wide mouth makes it harder to appreciate. So: a cognac snifter; sherry glass; a glencairn, which was ""made for whisky""; etc. But of course it's down to taste. If the aroma is too heady? Blow air into glass and then inhale the aroma. The burn is gone (important if you're drinking 62% rocket fuel single cask whisky) and you get a more dilute smell. No need for all this pretension; this glass is that. |
| |
| ▲ | thereisnospork 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You don't, but sometimes the pretension is just part of the fun. | |
| ▲ | kakacik 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Entire fashion business is just emotions for example. Dont underestimate that part of humans |
|
|
| ▲ | Kaibeezy 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://archive.ph/sojL4 |
|
| ▲ | Stealthisbook 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Solo cup |
| |
|
| ▲ | theDoug 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| NYT continues to be a great venue for marketing your high-end products, including running your own photos. All while providing the thinnest layer of “but not all agree” counterpoints which only strengthen the perception that this is a product for not the riff raff but truly a thing “for those who know.” |
|
| ▲ | rainbowzootsuit an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Mr. Zalto also recommended to me some $5,000 speaker cables. I could only afford the left channel so far. I really hope that the effects kick in when I get the right channel cable installed. |
|
| ▲ | chalmovsky 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| De gustibus non est disputandum, but for me, what matters most about a whisky is not "Is it in a correct glass?" but “Is it an Islay?” |
|
| ▲ | adrianN 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder whether they try do use objective measures at all when designing the glasses or whether it’s all vibes and impossible-to-blind taste tests. |
| |
| ▲ | bell-cot an hour ago | parent [-] | | He's in the glassware business - how is profit not an objective measure? | | |
| ▲ | classified an hour ago | parent [-] | | Does his profit depend on actual properties of the glass or on his ability to convince buyers that the alleged difference is worth the price? Or that it's a fashionable status symbol for those who can afford it? After all, the glass would probably be wasted if you only drank cheap swill out of it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kart23 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| i really don’t understand wine or alcohol snobs in general. to me, ingredients and food freshness is so much easier to actually discern and objectively easier to say what food tastes better than arguing over fine minute notes in drinks. a pastry hot out of the oven will taste miles better than one made 4 hours ago and reheated, but it’s pretty hard to find truly fresh baked goods in a lot of places. (donuts especially are amazing less minutes after frying!) fruit has huge differences in taste depending on the specific variety, where it’s grown, how long ago it was picked, especially stuff like stone fruit or berries. meat, fish, etc also have huge differences in quality and taste. but maybe i just haven’t had the right glassware :) |
| |
| ▲ | nagaiaida 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > fruit has huge differences in taste depending on the specific variety, where it’s grown, how long ago it was picked, especially stuff like stone fruit or berries. alcohol is usually a far better solvent than water for the compounds providing those nuances. if you want to enjoy those flavors out of situ, hello alcohol | |
| ▲ | beloch 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have three recommendations: 1. Do what makes you happy. 2. Don't make other people feel bad for not being as discerning/picky as you about something. 3. Becoming more discerning about something may make you happy at times, but it may also cost you money and turn a simple pleasure into an unsatisfying pursuit. Choose your obsessions carefully! You can choose not to care. You probably have friends who, by your standards, are shamefully oblivious to the quality of fruit they eat. If they're happy don't spoil it for them. The stuff aficionados do does tend to make a difference up to a point. It's not all BS. However, there is typically a diminishing returns curve. Often, there is also some self-deception or outright snake-oil further up the curve. The only argument I'd make for getting picky about whisky is that you can enjoy the equivalent of a shot for an hour or more. Not as pretense. I mean genuinely enjoying the smell of it for that long and slowly sipping it. It's a way to drink without drinking much. My experience is that glasses do make a difference, but only if you like whisky on its own (or with a few drops of water) at room temperature. If you prefer cocktails or whisky on the rocks, whisky-specific glasses are probably something you don't need to worry about. Remember recommendations #1 and #3 before you go any further! If you're happy, stay happy! It's okay to choose not to care about whisky. If you can choose not to drink alcohol at all you're probably better off. | |
| ▲ | globular-toast 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, I agree. I tried the whole whisky/whiskey thing in my early 20s. Had a few different single malts and some famous blends like Johnnie Walker and even had some proper glasses. I also went to some tasting sessions, so I'd tasted upwards of 20 different whiskies overall. Even compared to beer it's just not that interesting. It felt a bit culty at times, to be honest. But then there's the fact that most people get drunk off the stuff. I stopped doing most drugs before I hit 30. Alcohol was the first to go, being the most boring with the worst side effects. Once you get rid of that there's not a lot left really. > donuts especially are amazing less minutes after frying! Oh, absolutely! They are probably my favourite baked item, but I won't even bother unless I can actually see the dough so into the fryer. Unfortunately it's incredibly rare to find a good one. Most are loaded with sugary nonsense to compensate for them not being fresh. Interestingly, in the UK, a country known for obesity, foods like doughnuts where you can see frying process are properly out of fashion. But in nearby Spain, a much thinner country, they have no problem with churros and tortillas etc. It's a shame because doughnuts are far superior. | |
| ▲ | pseudosaid 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The self importance really brings out the nuanced self congratulatory notes. People like a thing and want to hype it up in their own way. Look at audiophiles, who use music to listen to their gear. Anybody can hear but few seek to listen to where the weight is |
|
