Common Barriers to Tasting Whiskey

Arsilica, Inc. (home of the NEAT glass), is releasing general research findings which explain why the average whiskey drinker after years of tasting, evaluation, and collecting, may know very little about the sensory science of whiskey tasting, and cares even less, as various segments of the spirits industry propagate myths that have become a barrier to understanding and enjoyment.?As a research company, since 2002, we have attended hundreds of spirits tasting events open to the novice public, as well as consulted and monitored hundreds of spirits competitions where attendees are experienced spirits judges.?Here we release our notes and conclusions on event participants’ attitudes and comments and analyze their motives.”?Following is a discussion of our discoveries on whiskey drinker behavior.

Typical Tasting Experience:?We have arrived at a well-known liquor store offering public tastings a few minutes early. Around the room we spot five or six people we’ve seen at previous events, as well as many newbies standing around in small groups, holding their iconic, tulip shaped whiskey glass. Center stage is the presenter, also a brand ambassador from a well-known whiskey company and the event organizer.?Five expressions will be tasted during the next 45-60 minutes.?During introductions and presentation of distillery history, assistants pour ? oz. samples into the attendees' glasses and the presenter relates details on the spirit being poured.?About 30 attendees wait expectantly for the signal to taste, and some are already sniffing their tiny-rimmed glasses.

Knowing looks and approving head-nods abound at the first deep sniff for olfactory clues, shortly thereafter the tasting signal is given, and the room falls silent as all smell, taste, and evaluate.?Few express audible opinions until the presenter relates the aromas and tastes he has been carefully schooled to discuss.?Most heads nod in agreement, with little commentary from the participants.?Comments are generally restricted to “I like it,’ and a few “I don’t like it.”

What just happened??Unfocused from tasting details, yet focused on behavior, we note a broader picture, summarized as follows:

There are three basic types of attendees; (1) a few serious whiskey drinkers/collectors, (2) others who came to learn and sample characteristics, and (3) around half, casual drinkers who came for free shots or a quick buzz to make their day. Interactions from the crowd include:

• As the presenter asks, “Can you taste the (insert characteristic)?”?a few casual drinkers respond with vigorous head nods and a few barely audible “Yes” responses, mostly to agree with and visually thank the presenter for the free shot.?When asked privately and directly, most did not actually perceive that character note.?Other than that, casual comments are few.?Our first indication that tulips hinder their detection of aromas.
• The serious whiskey drinkers know?their own preferences, and respond with specific questions:?“Who was the distiller? Tell me about the barrel.?What’s the mash bill? etc.”
• Label buyers compare everything to the scarce, expensive limited production bottles made famous by publicity, whether they have tasted them or not.?These drinkers believe; high price equals high quality.?Higher proof is better.?Cask strength is best.?High ethanol is high quality.?No science, no understanding, but authoritative in their illogical quest for best.?They don’t seek useful knowledge; they are name-droppers who wish to wear the mantle of a higher social level.
• There always seems to be at least one “wannabee”?who strives to appear more knowledgeable by contriving off-topic questions, or making foolish, unrelated statements: “What is the actual chemical interaction in the barrel which produces the butterscotch flavor??Does this bourbon have corn in it??What’s the secret recipe??When do they add the sugar?” etc.

Few noses can detect aromas through overpowering pungent, anesthetic ethanol.?Education in the spirits industry is a failure because it has been left up to authors, blog critics, industry executives, and industry schooled brand ambassadors, who have no scientific knowledge, but do have a prurient interest, and they hope their iconic tulip validates their identity as a knowledgeable whiskey lover.?There is a thirst among drinkers for truth, yet after many decades of unscientific conclusions and “fill-in-the-blanks” suppositions, accepted methodology, tasting procedures, and general cause and effect is full of myth and misconceptions when practical application of physics, chemistry, and sensory science is overlayed.?There must be total understanding of science and sensory for evaluation to progress to a higher level.?Sensory science cannot be developed without experienced professional noses, and sensory experts must be aware of proven science as the groundwork for evaluation.?The common mission must be to:?Replace myth, twisted science, and misinformation with scientific truth.

Over the years comments and points of view of industry spokesmen, whiskey club admins, and knowledgeable consumers have enabled us to enumerate accepted “Axioms” that represent mainstream beliefs assumed by many to be unquestionable truth.?An axiom is a proposition accepted without proof, serving as a starting point for reasoning upon which conclusions are built.?Axioms are self-evident truths or foundational principals not derived from other statements but given as the basis for deductive reasoning and development of a coherent logical structure.?Following the Axiom, we discuss how validated scientific research determines the axiom proposition to be false and must be replaced with factual, proven science.?A takeaway is presented for each axiom in the form of concise factual, scientific statements.

Axiom 1:?Taste is made up of thousands of different perceptions.?Taste is only sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami, restricted to these categories recognized by sensory research scientists everywhere.?Sensory evaluators should only use the taste category to define only these five, as there is an interaction between taste and olfactory that must be well understood.?Too often the confusion leads to misunderstanding the significance of what is actually perceived.?When sniffing aromas, olfactory sensations instigate a signal sent to the brain through the olfactory nerve, accompanied by a simple, conscious security question; “Is it safe to drink?” and secondarily, two additional queries “Is it pleasant (or not)?” and “Do I recognize it (or not)?”?The ortho-nasal phase of sensory (nose-sniff only) has limited usefulness, answering the above questions and nothing more.?Ortho-nasal has nothing to do with taste until the sample enters the oral cavity.?Ortho-nasal alerts the memory as to what to expect from retro-nasal perhaps preparing the brain for a specific aroma search from past events.?

Summarizing Charles Spence, noted sensory researcher most famous for studies on sensory interactions and quantifying a workable definition of flavor, Spence states that flavor is 80% olfactory, and 10% mouthfeel, and 10% taste.?In the case of less complicated substances, ethanol-based spirits, the percentage is closer to 90% aroma, 5% taste, and 5% mouthfeel.?The range of mouthfeels (coarse, grainy, smooth, metallic, minty, astringent, dry, oily, etc.) are more limited in spirits than in food varieties; and salty, bitter, umami tastes occur less.?Evaluators should not confuse taste (only five) and flavor (nearly infinite).?It is truthful to say, “Flavors consist of thousands of different combinations and permutations of olfactory, mouthfeel, and taste perceptions.”?

As you know, finish is the most important part of evaluation.?Once the first ortho-nasal olfactory questions have been satisfied, evaluation questions are asked, “What is it?” and “How good or bad is it?” and “What are all the detectable characteristics to fully identify and characterize it?”?These questions are answered within the oral cavity as a combination of all flavor components (mouthfeel, taste, and olfactory).?More than syntax or word misuse, the interchange creates basic procedural misunderstandings.

Olfactory again comes into play as a retro-nasal experience, after the sample has been sufficiently diluted by saliva (which changes finish perception. ?“Finish” signals are sent as a combined inseparable packet to the brain through the trigeminal nerve system for recognition or cataloging (if they are new or unfamiliar), and experiential memory is reset to recall that recent finish evaluation experience for future reference. ?When sampling ortho-nasal (sniff only) to answer the “Is it safe?” question, the “sniffed” information travels the olfactory nerve only, and it is completely independent (and therefore is generally different than the trigeminal retro-nasal, in which the retro-nasal, mouthfeel, and taste are inseparably combined in a single signal packet.

Sensory evaluators would do well to see the finish step as entirely different than the ortho-nasal step, and not be influenced too much by the ortho-nasal, initial smell.?The problem is that using a vessel which concentrates the ethanol aromas (40%+ ethanol, 55-58% air, and 2-5% character aromas) hinders the olfactory with each sniff without the awareness of the evaluator as ethanol is an anesthetic.?Anesthetic ethanol affects both the frontal (ortho) and posterior (retro) lobes of the olfactory bulb since the ethanol aroma passes the entire length of the bulb to the lungs during inhalation.?That is why ortho-nasal ethanol actually affects retro-nasal finish, particularly with higher concentrations, and prolonged sessions increase absorption of ethanol into the bloodstream through the lungs, resulting in impaired, slower judgment through disruptive calcium ion (+) flow and suppressed cyclic nucleotide-gated channels.

Effective evaluators absolutely must be aware that they do not receive signs, warnings, or indications of detrimental effects from ortho-nasal anesthetic ethanol. ?Yet these effects are always present when ethanol is present.?With lower concentrations, as in wine (in a large-bowl glass), one can detect hotness for typical styles within a range of about 10-16% ABV. ?An atypically hot nose in every particular variety of grape or wine style is easily notable and generally disagreeable. With spirits, using a large rim glass deconcentrates ethanol by natural diffusion (as in a tumbler), and highest ethanol is present in a tulip glass with cask-strength spirts.??The NEAT glass goes a step further by using an orifice (neck) to promote ethanol separation.

Takeaway: Taste refers only to the 5 basic tastes. Flavor = taste + olfactory + mouthfeel, with olfactory being by far the major component.?Ortho-nasal is not the entire olfactory story.?Retro-nasal olfactory is the key to accurate finish evaluation.?Concentrated ethanol on ortho-nasal olfactory anesthetizes retro-nasal olfactory unconsciously, affecting finish evaluation without any warning.

Axiom 2:?Different areas of the tongue identify specific tastes better than others. ?The tongue map, assigning specific flavors to areas of the tongue, originated in 1942 by Edwin Boring, mistakenly concluded from an earlier paper published in 1901 by D?P. Hanig.?Be aware that many instances occur in which the discredited tongue map is still intrinsically believed and taught by professional evaluators?In 1974 Virginia Collings, PhD University of Pittsburgh, proved “taste sensor distribution is consistent over all areas of the tongue.”?In 2004, Linda Bartoshuk, PhD University of Florida, proved the tongue map was “invalid” and “unscientific.” Wikipedia describes the tongue map as?“common misconception ... and thoroughly discredited” Long ingrained into the public mind as fact and taught in elementary and junior high school courses in the biological teaching of human taste, the unshakeable tongue map is thoroughly and wrongly ingrained into the minds of consumers and evaluators.

Glassware manufacturers continue to conduct tasting sessions promoting glass shape variations by utilizing the psychological power of subliminal suggestion to infer scientific validity and employing the misconception that shape changes flavor perception.?Subliminal suggestion triumphs over science and good judgment, as few people realize the vessel which delivers a liquid into the mouth has no effect on the taste or true perception of flavor.?It makes no difference on the finish whether you drink from cupped hands, a canning jar, a bucket, a urine sample vessel, Glencairn (or copy thereof), copita, or NEAT glass.?Once the liquid has entered the oral cavity, the finish evaluation process begins.?Marketing contrivances which falsely twist true science wrongly win until disparaged.?Tongue map is still taught by industry professionals and marketing oriented “experts” who should know better.

Researchers have conducted tasting sessions using different glassware and proven beyond a doubt that the sample vessel shape has no effect on perception when evaluators are blindfolded and do not touch the glass with their hands.?This realization is key to better understanding for all evaluators, and that is a solid reason to revisit our own basic education to fact-check personal knowledge.?Again, NEAT glass has a single purpose, to make the evaluation of aromas easier without ethanol on the nose, and nothing more.?Stop for a minute and contemplate “How could it?”?They are separated in space, although the glass barely touches the lower lip.?It can’t happen without magic, divine intervention, or psychological pre-conditioning to visual appearance, touch and feel, or by believing erroneous marketing material.?Belief in the tongue map is a personal psychological issue, not physical and sensory science.??Sensory perception is dependent upon human chemo-sensors located in the human body, not in the glass.

Takeaway:?The tongue map is invalid.?Any reference to experiencing different tastes on different parts of the tongue with or without the influence of the delivering vessel is a prurient marketing ploy with no scientific basis.?Delivery vessel shape has NO EFFECT on oral cavity finish evaluation.?Any other conclusion is unscientific and psychological.

Axiom 3: Smaller rim glasses concentrate aromas, so none can escape detection. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to evaluating high ABV ethanol beverages.?Most of the aromas are ethanol.?Small rims concentrate more ethanol and make it harder to discern aromas.?Varieties of tulip shapes have not been separated as to aroma profile by glassware blind tasting, and for all?practical purposes, have been considered by most professional sensory evaluators to be equivalent.?The presence of highly concentrated, airborne ethanol with such low concentrations of character aromas which are a tiny portion of the total inhaled air/aroma mixture, is astonishing to most evaluators.

Takeaway:?Tiny rim, tall vessels concentrate ethanol, and the pungency masks low concentration character aromas.?In vapor form, ethanol concentrations are much higher % than most evaluators realize and have an anesthetic effect on ortho-nasal and retro-nasal finish olfactory.?The smaller the rim, the higher ethanol, the taller the glass the higher the ethanol.

Axiom 4: Using recommended tasting methods for tulip glasses solves the high ethanol problem. ?Scotch blenders have known for years that it is impossible to blend effectively with the high concentrations of ethanol from the copita/tulip styles of glasses, and they dilute samples to 22% ABV prior to blending.?The twenty-two percent number is the result of a paper written nearly two decades ago which proved that dilution to 20% ABV changes the profile of the spirit due to the cohesive bonding properties of water molecules; some aromas are unmasked, while others are subdued at 20% or greater.?Choosing 22% is an oversimplified approach to the problem because changes are gradual for each % increase in dilution, and the experiments used in the journal papers were designed to establish total and certain aroma profile conversion, which occurred at 20%.?Therefore, 20% would be safe dilution with a 2% safety margin, correct??Not!?Besides, to dilute to 22% one would have to add nearly one ounce of water to an ounce of 40% ABV spirit, or exactly one ounce of water to a 44% ABV spirit to achieve the desired 20%?ABV for blending purposes, so the blenders would not blow out their olfactory receptor neurons prior to finishing the blending session.?Who drinks whisky like that??This procedural gaff is undeniable proof that industry blenders know ethanol affects olfactory perception, yet the blending solution doesn’t work well either.?It’s a big disadvantage to blenders and drinkers alike to use non-functional glassware.

Further proof that the industry recognizes the problem is the advent of specific procedures crafted by tulip glass proponents to lessen the ethanol effect.?Note the red annotations which explain why the mechanics of modifying the tasting procedure does not actually combat anesthesia, and only?acclimates the nose to pungency or changes aroma profile, although the ORNs (olfactory receptor neurons) are still affected by the anesthetic effects of the ethanol.?The sense of smell is compromised, but the pungency is gone because the numb ORNs have acclimated to the ethanol.?The sense of smell is compromised but it “feels” better, lulling one into a false sense of security believing the pungency problem has been solved.

The industry is aware and fully recognizes the existence and seriousness of ethanol effects, but reluctance to change to a glass that functions better for true evaluation has saddled the industry and consumers with one unassailable fact: detrimental ethanol effects will never be resolved with their glass of choice.?Imagine what could happen to the spirits industry and the aroma differentiations that occur could actually be perceived in different glassware without the overshadowing mask of ethanol hiding the subtleties.?

Takeaway:?Special tasting procedures for tulip glasses are contrived devices that acclimate pungency but have no effect on the silent, oblivious, anesthetic effects of ethanol.?Blender dilution of spirits for blending is contrived to save the use of the iconic shape throughout the industry.?There are only two reasons to add water to neat spirits; (1) “I like it that way,” and (2) pallet burn.?If pallet burn is an issue, add water after the ortho-nasal, but only enough to assuage pallet burn.?Saliva is the “heavy lifter” for dilution.

Axiom 5: It’s impossible to separate ethanol from the character aromas of a spirit.?In 1944, American scientists applied Graham’s Law of Gaseous Diffusion to separate two Uranium isotopes (235 and 238) to produce the atomic bomb.?Those two isotopes are very close in molecular mass, and the orifice had to be much smaller to diffuse 235 away from 238, and at that, the process had to be repeated multiple times to get the purification needed.?Now comes ethanol at 46 molecular mass and the highest molecular masses, oak lactones at 178, and a larger orifice size can successfully accomplish separation.?The original discovery by a Scottish physical chemist named Thomas Graham, was made in 1848, and the bomb application date stands as a perfect example of the time it may take for some known scientific discoveries to be utilized.

Takeaway:?Ethanol can be separated from character aromas to eliminate olfactory fatigue.?The glass design must have an orifice to squeeze and release the aromas to increase dispersion velocity of the lowest mass compound, ethanol.

Axiom 6:?Tulip-shaped glasses serve everyone well, including both sexes.?Tulips work against sensory perception for all the reasons previously noted.?Using the tulip for spirits is even more of an issue for the female gender.?Females have 43% greater ORNs (olfactory receptor neurons) than males, and have lower detection, identification, and discrimination olfactory thresholds.?Add to this the natural protect and nurture instincts of the female gender which carries, births, feeds, and ultimately cares for our children, and we discover the reason for natural female gender opposition to pungent, (maybe it’s poisonous?) ethanol.?Few women belong to spirit clubs due to the male peer pressure to “Do what we do, your glass should be the same as ours.”?

Males generally see their whiskey club as a fraternal bonding membership, and the tulip is their icon and identity badge for all to recognize they are whisky drinkers.?Place a glass of high-ABV spirits under a woman’s nose without warning, and one is liable to get slapped.?Not so with males, who attach a sense of masculinity to strong ethanol, similar to those who can endure the hottest peppers, “I ate three Carolina Ghosts, bet you can’t beat that!”?Could this concept be the reason for the cask strength market??Perhaps, as we are convinced that at least male spirits consumers are infatuated with ethanol, and pungency is validation they got what they paid for.

Years of sniffing from tiny rim glasses have turned the male whisky consumer into an ethanol bloodhound, and many times, we note at tastings, after the first sniff there is a knowing glance around the room as heads nod in approval at the presence of strong, pungent ethanol repeated after the first sip.?Rarely do they discuss the contents of the sample, and a few will go so far as to say, “This is good (or not).”?Following the initial tasting, descriptors and comments are noticeably absent because they do not smell anything definitive and surely don’t want their drinking buddies to know it.?Bolder women, when present, are usually the first to comment on flavor.?The male lack of sensory in the face of so much ethanol, or preoccupation with the ethanol is exactly how they become label buyers, promoting the most coveted or popular brands.?They can’t tell the difference, so they champion whatever they won’t be criticized for buying to share with their friends.?It’s a sad day for the whiskey drinker, but a good day for those so-called “professional” blog-emulators who are building a following on social media or in print and need to attract an audience who will depend on them for recommendations.?

So how do the women in the industry endure??One way is forced acclimation to ethanol pungency:?“If those guys can do this, I certainly can!”?The second way, least obvious but more prominent, is the sly adaptability of never sniffing ortho-nasally and allowing the saliva in the mouth to decrease the ethanol on the retro-nasal component of the finish.?That way the only hurdle is palate burn prior to mixing the beverage with saliva, that instant where it is nearly unbearable, especially for cask-strength expressions. ?We have found that many supersensitive male noses also minimize or refrain from ortho-nasal evaluation in tulips.

In another social aspect, and to our good fortune, we find younger generations don’t see spirits evaluation the same ways as the elbow-patch-tweed coat-vested-hooked pipe-slightly balding-graybeards who are smug enough to believe they are solely responsible for the popularity of their favorite brand of scotch whisky.?Greater appreciation and sensibility for the scientific has no doubt been fostered by evolution of the usefulness of the mobile phone; that instantaneous, readily accessible source of information used as a personal computer and social media interactor.?The shift has been augmented by conversion of many businesses to e-platforms where one can learn new things or transact by smartphone from auto and toilet.?This major younger generational shift in priorities coupled with disdain for the traditions that formed the screwed-up world as passed down to them, results in a more open-mind-science-based approach for handling useful information and gathers the clouds for a “perfect storm” consumer revolution.

The entire future of the spirits industry may depend on a universal, collective revelation by major company players that they have disconnected from the same younger generations who just happen to be their future customers.?Unfortunately, the gap grows larger every day they fail to seize the opportunity.?Emphases should be (1) take control of consumer education and (2) revise marketing objectives to embrace applied science over the present, common, twisted BS designed to achieve short-term sales objectives. ?Longer-term, loyalty-based relationships with future customers has to become priority.??Thoughtful effort now will make the difference later when baby-boomers are gone, or all are on limited fixed incomes.?The issue may easily turn into a “would-have, could-have,” and ultimately a disastrous “should-have” outcome when opportunity is finally addressed satisfactorily by alert emerging companies whose fresh approach can couple e-education with e-business plans and sophisticated AI solutions to solve issues directly related to their future consumers.?Science is king, always has been.

Takeaway:?Women have better olfactory than men, with lower detection, identification, and discrimination thresholds.?They are more sensitive to ethanol. ?A glass that allows each gender to enjoy their natural abilities to the fullest is gender equitable.?Women in the industry adapt to non-gender-friendly glassware by: (1) not using it, (2) forced acclimation to it, or (3) skipping the ortho-nasal portion of the evaluation process. A glass that discounts better female olfactory limits the alcohol beverage industry by excluding better evaluators (females) in general.?The spirits industry consistently fails to connect with potential future customers.

Axiom 7:?Tulips must have a useful, scientific function, or they wouldn’t have survived the past two decades.?Sadly, this is simply an untrue assumption, no science ever existed for the tulip shaped glass, it is popular only by inherited tradition and astute marketing. If there were any science anywhere, it would be a well-guarded, mystic secret, protected from understanding by black-box magic which will never have to explain itself or obey laws of physics.?

Factually, it is the circumstantial acceptance of a glass designed for 18-22% fortified wine (madeira, port, sherry, e.g.).?Placing 40%+ ABV spirits in a glass designed for 22% creates an unnecessary ethanol nose bomb which hinders our appreciation of spirits while slowly reconditioning us to focus on high ethanol.?The tumbler or “rocks glass” at least gives one the chance to enjoy spirits with some diffusion of olfactory ethanol.?Regardless of one’s favorite glass choice, NEAT remains the best diagnostic glass in existence to date for detection of as many character aromas as possible to provide an accurate evaluation.

Takeaway: Drinking 40% ABV straight, neat spirits from a glass originally designed for 22% ABV creates a pungent, anesthetic nose-bomb which quickly compromises the sense of smell, both ortho-nasally and retro-nasally.

Axiom 8:?Ethanol on the nose is no big deal, hundreds of thousands of spirits evaluators have been using tulips for decades, and it has not noticeably affected their ability to detect aromas.?If it isn’t noticeable, it must not be an issue.?Here are the hard facts as proven by several peer-reviewed scientific journal papers over the past few decades.

• Ethanol masks subtle aromas by raising the aroma detection threshold (the minimum concentration that must be present to detect an aroma)
• Ethanol obscures aromas, and although an aroma may be detected, that aroma is unrecognizable, because ethanol raises the identification threshold
• Ethanol raises discrimination thresholds (e.g., can’t tell peach from apricot)
• Ethanol disrupts calcium ion (+) flow, suppresses cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, and delays impulse firing, thus slowing response time from ORNs (olfactory receptor neurons)?to conscious thought
• Ethanol binds with or blocks most ORNs leaving few to identify character aromas, and in the extreme causes olfactory fatigue, characterized by “I can’t identify this aroma,” or “I don’t smell anything,” or “Everything smells the same.”?This occurs commonly in wine evaluations and is much more predominate in spirits tastings due to the higher ethanol concentrations in even narrower glasses.?Experiential memory kicks in when asked “What am I supposed to smell?” ?The memory response goes something like “Hey, its whisky, the last few times you sampled, you smelled oak, honey and caramel,” and now the evaluator is working hard to verify past tastings, not evaluating the intended evaluation sample, completely diverted into discovering what the fatigued nose cannot possibly smell.
• Sharp ethanol pungency interferes with the focus necessary to detect subtle aromas in low concentrations.
• Due to the high concentrations of ethanol in tulip glasses, they are not gender equitable. (Equitable meaning that tulips may be all that a male will need for his olfactory perception capabilities, but tulips further hinder the natural superior olfactory abilities of females).?We actually discovered that in an A-B study, 87%?of males preferred the engineered NEAT glass, but peer pressure and fraternalism lead most back to the tulip brotherhood when drinking in public.

Takeaway:?Ethanol on the olfactory is a big deal, and obliviousness or ignorance jeopardizes the quality of spirits evaluation and creates a false sense of security in making crucial purchasing decisions.?We view ethanol as our friend as it provides relaxation from a hard day’s work, but it is the enemy of those who depend on their senses to make a living or make expensive spirits purchases.

Summary: Most whiskey (or any spirits) tasters seek the pungency of ethanol as validation that they got what they expected, and most do not care about the finer points of taste, especially since they are largely unable to experience them in a glass that concentrates pungent, nose-numbing ethanol.?Returning to the whiskey tasting event, we are on the last of the five expressions, and the crowd is getting louder, indicating the ethanol is having further reaching effects than olfactory numbing.?Some purchase bottles to take home, some leave with plans to go to their favorite bar, and the rest fade away into the evening perhaps satisfied that they got a few free shots.

The only thing left for discussion is how to move away from the present evaluation procedures which are based on a nun-functional glass and twisted misunderstanding of science to a new shape that has the possibility of changing the industry by empowering consumers through their own abilities to choose once aromas are unmasked and displayed for evaluation.?Product flavor and expression possibilities are practically endless to distillers when many different flavors can be perceived.?Revisiting basic education to include proven science is absolutely necessary to acquire a deeper and broader understanding.

This story is about a diagnostic tool, yet it begs the question, why wouldn’t everyone want to drink from the best diagnostic tool??One reason for Tulip popularity is because it was the original, traditional glass of choice for the blender/experts, and supported by industry spokespersons.?The tulip is the whisky drinker’s favorite glassware for all the wrong reasons and its functionality/usefulness is similar to men’s ties or women’s high-heel shoes – popular yet functionless, yet, nonetheless, an identity badge.

It is truly a shame that in our technologically advanced civilization,?there is still a major holdout for non-functional “tradition” over a proven science that opens doors to truthful and honest evaluation and can diminish public fixation on the odor of ethanol. Science eventually replaces all non-ritual tradition; gasoline autos to electric vehicles, wood stoves to microwaves and convection, iceboxes to refrigerators and cryogenic freezers, gliders to jets and rockets, and a traditional, iconic, non-functional whisky glass to the next higher level function glass, whether it’s NEAT or a shape yet to be discovered.?Today, NEAT is a significant step.

If the professional evaluator wants to experience the aromas with ethanol presence intact as presented by a tulip, place the nose down to the neck in the glass.?NEAT delivers both ethanol and sans-ethanol concentrations.?Why not use one glass with choices of expression - you, as the evaluator are in control.?This is why we refer to NEAT as the ultimate, universal spirits experience. There is no sense in going back to a pungent, numbed-nose environment for tasting and evaluating spirits of all kinds. The tulip is definitely not your friend.

More Info at NEAT Ultimate Spirits Glass Best Whiskey tasting glassware (theneatglass.com)