Whisky Advocate

Whisky in a can: good or bad?

January 18th, 2011

Scottish Spirits, a Panama-based company with an office in Scotland, is selling blended whisky in a can in the Caribbean and South America. The Daily Record reported it here yesterday. Have a look.

This issue was a big deal in the beer industry when high-end craft brewers started putting their beer in cans. Did it tarnish the reputation of the craft brewers? I don’t think so.

I buy good beer in cans every year. Why? I don’t want glass bottles on my boat. Bare feet and broken glass just don’t go well together. (Blood on my white deck better be from fish, not people.). I also don’t want to drink crap beer, so I am happy to have the opportunity to buy good beer in cans.

I don’t have any whisky bottles on my boat, largely for the same reason. I put whisky in a flask and have it available. But, if I could buy good whisky in a can, I would. It would make my Manhattan-drinking friends very happy if I had a can of good bourbon on board. And I wouldn’t mind having some good scotch handy too and not have to worry about transferring it to a flask!

So, what do you think? Is canned whisky good or bad for the whisky industry?

102 Responses to “Whisky in a can: good or bad?”

  1. bozzy says:

    It is pretty funny that you posted this topic the day I received the photo of a “Suntory Old Whisky” in a tiny can from a friend visiting Tokyo.

    First I was hesitant but actually I liked the idea to put a couple of whisky cans in my backpack when I am hiking without getting worried of broken glass pieces…

  2. If it were real whisky, I’d have the same opinion on canned whisky than I have on iced whisky: Alright for some, but not for me.

    But if you look at the Scottish Spirits website, you may want to doubt if the canned product is actually whisky. That piece of news made me curious about this company. Here is what I found:

    • sam k says:

      You know, Oliver, I just now noticed that it doesn’t say “Scotch” anywhere on the can!

    • MaltExplorer says:

      Nice little investigation Oliver. The product looks dodgy to me. I’m skeptical about the spirit itself as well. There is only one way to find out I guess…oh, yes, I forgot they would rather not sell the product in Europe. I wonder why…

  3. Lee Foster says:

    Personally it sounds wrong. It’s like drinking beer out of a plastic cup. Surely if people want a good whisky to carry about, get a decent hip flask so it looks more sophisticated.

    I’d try it out curiosity I suppose, but I do like uncorking a nice bottle rather than snap a ring back. Be more inclined to drink it all as you cant reclose it! Poor liver.

    On another note, wouldn’t the metal have an effect on the taste after so long?

  4. Rick Duff says:

    I don’t like this idea. The can pictured is like a standard 12 ounce beer can.
    I want something resealable (like a flask.) 12 ounces is too much for me at one sitting..
    (call me a lightweight if you want.)

    • John Hansell says:

      Good point about the size! 12 ounces is a lot. There better be a few people to share the whisky with.

    • Jeff Frane says:

      Beat me to it. A bottle or a flask can be reclosed, but this is pretty much a guarantee that all 12 oz has to be consumed in short order.

      I’ve long since given up trying to convince people that cans are a perfectly good package for beer, however. I’d have to force each of them to blind taste an Old Chub or a Dale’s Pale. Or let them taste some wonderful skunked beer from a bottle.

  5. bozzy says:

    That’s true… 12 ounces is too big.

    It sounded like a cute idea to me at first but now I am thinking that I would take my flask with me… I would like to taste though.

  6. Robo says:

    “Dram in a Can” might actually work if a well known distillery were to go this route. Although, I see this working more in the “value bourbon” clientele than the Single Malt crowd.

  7. Michael says:

    I think that it is the idea below the level, I would really like to comment on. I do not buy beer in cans and wine in cardboard boxes either. Some people are able to do anything for profit. I am certain though that it may become popular in drinking party circles.

  8. John Hansell says:

    Here’s the way I see it. If you think it is okay to put whisky in a flask, then you should be okay having it put in a can too. They are both metal.

    Both have their advantages. Flasks are convenient to transport, and you can reseal them. But you also have to wash them when you’re done. The can is one size, bulky when compared to a flask, and you gotta drink the whole thing (or transfer the remains to a flask or bottle when finished). But there’s no cleaning involved.

    What’s wrong with the option of having one or the other?

    • Peter says:

      The flask is reusable and the can will generate trash.

      • sam k says:

        The whiskey in the flask came from a bottle that ends up being trash, or at the very least, recyclable like the can. Seems like a wash to me.

    • JC Skinner says:

      Stainless steel is flavour-inert. Aluminium isn’t.

      • sam k says:

        As per John’s response above, aluminum cans are coated with an inert resin which prevents contact with the metal itself. If this were not the case, anything put into a can would taste like the can to a disconcerting degree…tomato and other acidic juices, beer, etc., etc. The can manufacturers certainly want to maintain their good standing in the container marketplace.

        You and I may not choose the can as our go-to container of choice, but more beer is sold in cans than bottles, at least in the States, so once again, why not allow the consumer the option and let them make up their own minds?

        • JC Skinner says:

          I’m not suggesting it should be banned. But I won’t be going near it.
          It’s a matter of fact that you can’t prevent canned liquids from gaining a metallic tang. Canned juices and beers are all easily detectible from their bottled counterparts in a simple blind taste test. I can’t imagine that spirits would be any different.
          Why not get a few pals around and try it yourself? Blind test a few beers, bottled and canned, from the same brewer. Ideally, try the same beer from both, blind.
          I suspect with a bit of practice, you’ll soon be able to spot the canned beer nearly every time.

          • sam k says:

            Whatever. With the overwhelming acceptance of the can for quality craft beers and just about everything else, I don’t think it’s worth the effort, to be honest. I’m drinking a beer from a can right now (No glass, God’s honest truth…which circle of Hell am I in right now?) and am not in the least bit repulsed. I’m on board with the concept, and welcome the advent of whiskey in a can if that’s what the consumer wants.

            Go forth and multiply.

          • JC Skinner says:

            Chacun a son gout, Sam. It’s not for me, but if there’s a market for it, then it’ll sell.

  9. Gllaguno says:

    On the scotch side, I personally think this would suit a lot of people that likes to drink their whisky like that. But personally, I prefer Single Malt, and Single Malt is a “Luxury” product, and be honest, a canned “luxury” product doesn’t look that Luxurious. So I think this will work for certain types of whisky but not for the premium ones.

  10. Joe M says:

    How about those bottle-shaped aluminum can-bottles that you get at ballgames? Would that make it more acceptable?

  11. Yello to Mello says:

    Well they do put wine in tetra paks in some instances and it works as far as I know.

  12. Peter says:

    Considering no one is going to be buying 1 oz cans (that probably goes for selling them too), the can will probably take a different shape than the standard 12 oz or pint can with the flip top. Instead the can would more likely come with a screw top before most of those of us who are willing to buy whisky in a can will.

    That said, since most whisky is already priced quite high compared to most other spirits, most of us won’t want to buy whisky in a can as we like to see the whisky in the bottle and the bottle is much classier than the can. And those of you with big boats who don’t want glass on the boat will most likely want to drink good whisky and not likely the few that may one day be available in the can.

    I can’t see it ever happening.

  13. mark davis says:

    In general I am for innovation. Is this for winos to drink on the street or to bring on a picnic to spike a bottle of soda? Seems like a single use flask that doesn’t reseal.

    I’d love to see more nice or special editions whiskeys come in small sizes.

  14. sku says:

    I’m surprised Bruichladdich didn’t market this first. Would they sell them by the six pack? I like the idea of someone saying, “Hey, pick me up a six pack of Laphroaig while you’re out.”

    • James K says:

      i’ll take a case please!
      i actually like the idea, although maybe in (slightly) smaller cans than the standard 12 oz. (maybe 11 oz?–haha).

  15. Teddy Donobauer says:

    Seeing its a blended I don’t really mind…

  16. They would have to be resealable or very small but all in all I’m still not convinced that cans taste as good as glass for beer, and that only costs about $10 a 6 pack. Shell out $40 and have it potentially not be as good as a bottle?!? Besides flasks are sweet.

  17. I think its a pretty darn good idea for certain purposes. I wouldn’t buy a Lagavulin 21 in a can, but for festivals and travel cans can be really handy. Good idea, actually. Why didn´t anyone do this years ago?!

  18. Adam says:

    I agree with many of the posters, and I could honestly see wine in a can far before I see whisky in a can. It is simply because even if they do the mini 4 oz cans, that I used to see for kids lunches (back before people started to really crack down on negative health effects of soda), it would be far too much. I am not saying I have never consumed over 4 oz in an evening or day, just simply for the purpose of casual drinking it is still a large volume for something as potent as whisky.

  19. Jeremy says:

    I think plastic bottles make more sense because like a can they are disposable/recyclable, don’t break into sharp fragments, and can come in any size. However they’re also resealable. The next time you’re at a liquor store look at bottom-shelf blends or vodka and imagine (single malt?) whisky in a bottle like that.

  20. sam k says:

    Some American distillers (Wild Turkey, Jim Beam, et al) put their whiskey in 750 ml PET bottles. Do any Scots ,other than cheap blends in handles? Though they’re resealable, they’re obviously for use in situations where glass is unacceptable. The can seems to be a natural extension of this concept, and though not for single-serve situations, why not, if the occasion calls for it?

  21. JC Skinner says:

    Not for me, thanks.
    While I see the logic of no glass bottles on a boat, you could always decant spirits into plastic bottles or stainless steel hipflasks rather than run the likely risk of aluminium affecting the taste of your dram.
    It certainly changes the taste of beers, adversely in my opinion. When I worked on the taste panel of a major world beer brewer, one of the most feared off-tastes we examined for was that exact metallic tang one gets from aluminium cans.
    Now, that brewer of course sells its product in cans, as well as bottles and draught. The market is there, and they’d be foolish not to provide for it. But the brewers themselves considered it one of the worst things to find in their beer, and not one of them would ever drink their own product from a can.
    That was enough for me. I’ve never had any alcoholic drink from a can since, unless there was literally no other option available (and even then I often abstain.)

    • Rick H says:

      JC, when was your experience with taste testing beer in cans? I’m a brewer and we are all pretty intrigued with canning. It allows us to get our product in places bottles can not go (airplanes, boats, etc.) and it is a superior seal and storage container to bottles (light is the enemy of beer – there is no light at all hitting a canned beer, where there is, even for a brown bottle; the other enemy is air which will cause staling reactions, and there’s little headspace air in cans and no air can get in unlike through caps). With the advent of lining, there is no more aluminum reaction to the beer. The only off taste folks get from cans these days, to my knowledge, is if they drink from the can – which is never recommended (nor is drinking from the bottle!)

      • JC Skinner says:

        It was this century, Rick. My experience was uniformally negative, really. For all the lining, you can still always taste the metal. Now, for a stout, a metallic taint was considered an undesirable off-taste anyway, which occasionally came through the brewing process naturally even if it was a draught or bottled sample, as most of what I tested was.
        With canned beers, it was always there. Depending on freshness (how long in the can) sometimes it wasn’t sufficient to be overly concerned about. But it was always there. Our job with bottled or draught samples was to reject if we noticed a metallic tang at all. With canned beer, it depended on how significant the taint was. As blind tasters, we wouldn’t know which we were drinking while assessing. We’d be told later. When we found a metallic taint in a canned beer (which was pretty much always), it depended on how low the taint was rated by the panel as to whether it was released or not.
        I very much acknowledge the convenience and many benefits to canning beer (or indeed other beverages.) But this isn’t like plastic corks in wine, where an innovation is resisted because the consumer preference for natural cork is driven by either tradition, perception of it being ‘cheap’ to use plastic, or else support for the cork industry.
        With canned beverages, you can always taste the metal if you look for it. Sometimes (and I feel OJ is the most severely affected beverage), it’s overwhelming.

        • Rick H says:

          I’m not sure what you mean by it was this century. The lining stuff isn’t that old. If you were doing this 15 years ago I’d agree with your results. But we’re hearing a lot of good things about the lined cans. It’s why a lot of craft brewers are investing in canning lines. It’s why I was asking for the time reference. I do notice metallic taste in some of the craft cans but only when drinking out of the can. You can get that from drinking out of bottles too – the caps leave a taste. With the lining there is no contact with the metal. And you are correct that one of the off flavors in beer is a metallic flavor. It’s a flavor we are trained to recognize and know how to correct. Any beer style can have it.

          • sam k says:

            Actually Rick, the lining issue is one that’s been on the radar since the advent of the can itself. The brewers and can manufacturers have been aware of those shortcomings since the 1930s, and have continually worked to overcome them. In the very early days of steel cans, the lining was wax, which kept the metal contact at bay. After that, it was an increasingly sophisticated array of linings leading up to the current inert lacquers that serve the same purpose.

            I’m afraid that some personal biases won’t permit the acceptance of advancing technologies because of whatever their preconceived notions might be.

          • JC Skinner says:

            By this century, I mean within the past ten years. Less than that, in fact.
            And yes, any beer can suffer a metallic taint. I just found it more noticeable in stout. That might be personal sensitivity though.
            @Sam – I don’t have a ‘personal bias’ or ‘preconceived notions’ against canned beverages. They serve a great purpose. What I have is personal experiences dating from my time on a brewer’s taste panel. Improvements in canning tech are ongoing, but they haven’t yet reached the point where I’d be unable to tell a canned beer apart from a bottled one way more times than not. Again, perhaps that’s a personal sensitivity.
            I’ve had mixed bourbon and coke from a can in the past, and it was perfectly palatable for what it was. But I wouldn’t be so keen on trying a decent whiskey in a can. (Of course, I’m not aware whether this Panamanian whiskey is decent or not, as I haven’t had the pleasure.)
            Whether it is or it isn’t, it does mean that I personally wouldn’t be interested in whiskey from a can. I’m not being prescriptive, though. Each to their own. More power to you if it works for you.

          • sam k says:

            Thanks for clarifying, JC. Were those tastings conducted blind?

          • Rick H says:

            Thanks for that, JC – you know, I wonder if you are a ‘super taster’? At least more sensitive than most – because I’ve heard so many good things about the modern cans from brewers who have shifted to them. Interesting.

          • JC Skinner says:

            @Sam, yup. All tastings were conducted blind, in lab conditions. Darkened booths, no communication between tasters during tastings (though often lively discussions afterwards!), coloured glasses to prevent visual cues, beers scored for 20 or 30 olfactory, taste and retro-olfactory positive and negative traits on a scale of 0-100 after six months training with lab grade flavour samples before we were let near the booze.
            @Rick: I think everyone’s palate is different. Each of us are more sensitive to certain tastes and smells than others are. I used to find it difficult to score levels of diacetyl, for example, whereas one of my colleagues could virtually have told you how many parts per million there were in any sample. That’s why there was a panel, I suppose. By cross-referencing all the tasters’ various strengths, the brewers could get a really accurate sense of what was going on in their beers. Maybe it is the case that I pick up on metallic taints more than most. Anything’s possible.

          • sam k says:

            Holy cow! Any reservations I may have had have been erased totally. Carry on!

  22. I would prefer an aluminium bottle to the can. All aluminium packaging has a lacquer inside which protects the product. You can also reseal a bottle. Look at Danska Vodka — white spirits already in an alumunium bottle.

  23. David Bailey says:

    Interesting concept, similar to other spirits RTD’s on the shelves sans being mixed. I think this a great idea for some marketing wise, especially a younger demographic. Relatively easy to carry, and meant to be shared with friends( doubt this was intended to be consumed alone in one sitting, then again…). Personally I’d prefer my own flask, especially since I usually pour its contents into a glass while out. Also has a solid seal and my preference of hooch, but I wouldn’t knock someone else for it. To each his own. Question is how much would a 6 or 12 pack of this be, considering rising whisky costs? And when is this headed to the States. You know someone will eventually market that here 🙂

  24. Gary says:

    Make it flat like a flask with a screw top and I’m in.

  25. Rob Mac Kichan says:

    When I drink beer from a can, I’m more inclined to take a mouthful. Whisky being higher in alcohol would be difficult to sip and enjoy the nose. Drinking a manhattan or other cocktail would be just fine, but not a fine scotch, bourbon or any other fine spirit.

    • John Hansell says:

      Keep in mind that when I buy canned beer, I never drink from the can. I pour it into a cup. (Plastic, if I’m on my boat.) I would do the same with whisky.

  26. I think it’s a novel idea and I’m for it. You will never, ever see this reaching the premium spirits market (it’ll be solely regulated to blends) but I’m fine with that. I’ve always found pulling out a 375/350 of spirits in those little hip flasks to be a little socially damning (you have a flask of that on you and people start to wonder if you’re ok). But a can is nice. No glass to break, easy to bring around, ideal for sharing with friends. Just mix a can of this with 4 cans of ginger ale or ginger beer and split between friends. Bam, instant get together. The only thing that would concern me is price. I’m hoping that it wouldn’t come in six packs (that’d get expensive fast). Either singles or a four pack would be the most I’d buy at a time.

  27. joe hyman says:

    do they come as mixers as well? scotch & soda, etc.?
    seems like someone trying to cash in on the current popularity of whisky. reminds me of the stories of new millionaires in china buying up all the 1st growth wines from france and drinking them with coke!

  28. MrTH says:

    I have purchased many whiskies in cans. Of course, there is always a bottle inside the can.

    Talk us down from fancy tins and wooden boxes first. Then we’ll talk cans.

  29. maltakias says:

    If noboby says it then i will.



  30. I think it would be great for outdoor activities like hiking or tailgating and my only concern is those few who will insist on guzzling it like a beer. 12 ounces of whisky in a short period of time is very dangerous

  31. Red_Arremer says:

    I’d rather have a 350 ml glass bottle, which is probably about 12 ounces.

    As far as broken bottle scenarios go– I’ve broken bottles just hanging out in my house, but I’d still rather buy my whisky in glass with a resealable top.

    This also pushes scotch whisky a little further into the *junk food* category, which is kind of a drag.

    • John Hansell says:

      Trust me when I say that a boat with a bunch of barefoot people being knocked back and forth by waves is much less agreable to broken glass than most scenarios in my home. It’s all about reducing risk.

      • Peter says:


        Doesn’t whiskey already come in small plastic bottles (like ones on planes or in hotel room bars)? Or are they also glass?

  32. Keith Sexton says:

    I’m indifferent. I don’t see a real reason to be against it. Resealability would be my only concern. if you have to transfer it, what’s the point?

    • John Hansell says:

      The can is meant to be a social thing. Even the company who created this said it’s to be shared with a few people. I’m not going to open a magnum of wine and drink it by myself. I think the same logic will apply to this. Don’t open it if you don’t have enough people to drink it.

      • Red_Arremer says:

        I guess whether or not people will be picking it up to chug all on their own depends on the price– what is it by the way?

  33. Mberkow says:

    A couple of months back I had the opportunity to visit a distillery in the far east. They were packaging whiskey in foil packs (for Americans think Capri Sun style). While they admitted it was an experiment and wasn’t for export after seeing that packaging it doesn’t surprise me that other companies would experiment as well.

    • sam k says:

      Exactly! When you think of it, whiskey was once dispensed straight from the barrel into whatever container the customer provided, probably a crock or a pail. I have a photo of a pre-Prohibition liquor store in Lancaster, PA where they had many barrels standing along the perimeter of the store, each with a spigot driven into a stave near the bottom of the barrel. Make your selection, pay your money, and fill your own jug.

      How must those folks have felt when the store announced (which they must have done at some point) that you could no longer bring your own crock jug for refilling, but must now purchase your favorite brand pre-sealed in a glass bottle at additional cost for each individual purchase? Plus, perhaps your jug held a gallon, but the bottles only hold a quart, raising the cost even more.

      Then PET entered the equation and was accepted, mainly for cheaper brands, and presented an acceptable solution to the breakage problems associated with glass. Heck, when was the last time you bought a glass bottle of soda? Mayonnaise? Peanut butter? Thinking about it on this level, the whiskey industry seems to be way behind the curve in packaging innovation, except of course for the excesses of high-end limited releases.

      Packaging will evolve, and the more practical concepts will be accepted in the marketplace and may even become mainstream. The customer base will make that decision, not the manufacturer. If it’s not your cup of tea, then so be it. Stay with the girl that you brought to the dance, but don’t tell me who I should go home with.

      • MrTH says:

        As long as it’s not the girl I brought to the dance….

      • Red_Arremer says:

        Uhh Sam– come on… Are you really trying to use the principle that “whisky consumers shape the market with their purchases” to shut down criticism of a new product? Obviously whisky purchases are partly shaped by inter-consumer dialogues, which often address the tastefulness of products. And by the way– Stay away from that girl– She’s bad news 😉

        • sam k says:

          My comment had nothing to do with the contents, Red, just consumer preferences for the packaging itself.

          As for the girl, I knew that as soon as I saw her with MrTH!

          • Red_Arremer says:

            I meant tastefulness in the aesthetic sense, Sam– I can see where that could confuse you given that we’re on about whisky.

            My point is that the notion that whisky consumers should make up their own minds is perfectly compatible with them influencing one and others’ values about any and all aspects of a whisky. Simply speaking the whisky market is shaped by consumer purchases. But Wallets don’t vote by themselves. People vote with their wallets and their motives are the consequence of many things some of which they’ve been persuaded of by other consumers.

          • sam k says:

            Agreed, Red.

  34. Roger says:

    The key for me if they are to non-resealable is in the inherent match or mismatch of the serving size to the container volume. Beer matches perfectly. So do airline minis. If they are resealable, then it’s plastic bottles not glass that is the comparison.

    If these containers are not resealable then the producer has forced the enjoyment of the product to be on a single day only. Open today buy more tomorrow. Product moves. Commerce is satisfied. Sure, a good portion may be wasted or peer pressure used to get it all drunk (oops, I used that word), but new product is needed tomorrow. In comparison, any resealable bottle is the container of moderation.

    • The Bitter Fig says:

      This basically sums up my thoughts. Too big a portion for one serving, and it doesn’t really seem any more practical than a plastic bottle or resealable tetrapak or whatnot.

      The basic premise of a non-glass containers seems fine, but this doesn’t seem quite right.

  35. nikos says:

    the idea sucks. whisky is much more sophisticated that beer. at least from the way we produce whisky. I don’t like it. Special spirits should be sold in special packages. it is blended of course so someone could say “whats so special about crappy blended whisky?” but it is whisky after all. Just my two cents….

    • John Hansell says:

      There are some VERY sophisticated beers. You just aren’t aware of them.

    • Rick H says:

      Nikos, Beer is extremely, extremely sophisticated and complex. I’d argue (and again, I’m a brewer so I am biased) that is is more complex and sophisticated than wine, for sure.

      Whisky is, basically, made from beer, so I’d agree that it’s sophisticated and complex but the two are very closely related. Beer::Whisky, Wine::Brandy. There’s a reason Whisky is so much better, deeper, and interesting than Brandy…. beer! 🙂

  36. lawschooldrunk says:

    Are you sure this isn’t an April fools joke?

    I think this product should debut in Cannes, France. If people have complaints, they should just can it. If you flavor it with berries, you can call it Canterbury whisky. I have more…

  37. lucky says:

    Plastic bottles would be preferable to cans. Resalable top is a necessity. It seems only bottom shelf juice is in plastic just now. It might be nice to have a ferw options and not do the swap myself.

    • Red_Arremer says:

      Paterson wrote in his book about how some industry people flipped out when W & M started doing the first plastic nip bottles for planes.

  38. JC Skinner says:

    Irish airline Ryanair has been serving whiskey in what some wags have described as ‘ketchup sachets’ on their flights for about five years now.
    This is what they look like –
    The manufacturers took a slap on the wrists originally because it was thought the foil packets could be mistaken by kids for sweets (candy) and the sachets were banned in Irish pubs and off-licences almost as soon as they were released:
    I never had the pleasure myself, but Serge at Whisky Fun wasn’t too impressed –
    In light of this, perhaps Panamanian whisky in an aluminium can could be considered rather upmarket.

  39. B.J. Reed says:

    I think the answer is to put it in a can, put it in the fridge and then pour it into a plastic glass on a really nice boat – Now if they could figure out how to carbonate it as well, I think we have something!!! 🙂

    • For a carbonated whisky you can always use the Brewdog “Sink the Bismarck”. You just have to be courageous enough to bring it onboard a boat. But you may be safe if it’s under an allied flag 😉

  40. maltakias says:

    If you have seen and remember the opening scene of “Pupl Fiction” you would remember the dialogue between Travolta and Jackson talking about “little differences in Europe”.

    Well take it in to consideration when i say it’s an awful thing to do.I’m very open minded in general but i also believe that some things have to stay inside a certain path.So my European mind tells me that anything in a tin can is either a refreshment,a cheap alcoholic beverage or a piece of junk.

    And when i’m thinking about whisky i don’t care for anything that counts in any of the three mentioned categories.

    • Red_Arremer says:

      I feel kind of like that Malta, but how much further towards trashiness is canned whisky– We already have plastic nips and handles of lots of undistinguished blends– What makes this the tipping point taste-wise?

  41. maltakias says:

    Well, i don’t know about there but here you only find whisky in glass bottles and nothing else.

  42. This concept is nothing new, the Japanese, esp Suntory have been issuing whisky and soda in cans for years (as a Highball) – they’re for sale in a few supermarkets I visited, when last travelling there. And, for what it’s worth, I found the idea to be quite a refreshing way of serving whisky on a particularly hot day!
    I’ve also seen ‘Highball Towers’ in a few bars in Tokyo- whisky and soda… on tap!!

  43. Helgi Briem says:

    Glengoyne’s Burnfoot has been available in a 0.5L plastic bottle for a while and I like to have one with me when I travel. I’ve bought 3 I think. It’s very convenient, resealable, unbreakable and so on.

  44. Whisky2.0 says:

    Sorry for jumping in late. I was too busy writing about this on my blog last week.

    The size issue is, ahem, huge! A can of beer/whisky/whatever is 1/10th of a gallon. In other words, 2 cans is 1/5th of a gallon. In other words, 2 12-ounce cans have close to the same capacity of a 700- or 750-ml bottle. But bottles are resealable. Personally, I don’t ever imagine knocking back a half-bottle of whisky at a single sitting. I wrote some more thoughts along these lines on my blog last week: — or if you don’t like bitly.

    I would consider a resealable plastic bottle, but only if there was a prominent freshness date. I would guess that plastic would transfer undesirable flavors over time, compared to glass.

  45. MrTH says:

    Whack for the daddy-o, Whack for the daddy-o, there’s whiskey in the can.


  46. Helgi Briem says:

    A half litre of Burnfoot never lasts long enough in my hands for me to worry about a freshness date 😉

  47. […] are cropping up in all corners of the globe with new artisan whisky products. Some, like the Whisky in a Can from a company in the Caribbean, don’t exactly qualify as ‘fine’. It should be […]

© Copyright 2017. Whisky Advocate. All rights reserved.