[hnlmorg]

"Cask strength" literally means it hasn't been substantially diluted from the cask. ie it's a higher percentage than you're typical bottled whisky. And as you stated yourself, the expectation is that the drinker would often dilute to taste themselves. So you're not actually disagreeing with the statement you're attempting to rebuttal.

> I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.

"rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.

[tehsuk]

The paper goes on with "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water". It wasn't in my quote, but the paper completely disregards whisky bottled at higher ABV%. Something I think is important when talking about dilution.

> "rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.

I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.

[hnlmorg]

> The paper goes on with "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water". It wasn't in my quote, but the paper completely disregards whisky bottled at higher ABV%. Something I think is important when talking about dilution.

But my point is that whisky that is bottled at significantly higher proofs (remember the article says "about 40%" (emphasis mine) thus acknowledging there is already room for variation) are sold as "cask strength". This is a point you also make yourself. Thus the article is correct in the general sense.

> I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.

Which still contains the term "rare" which is a gross exaggeration of the actual market (and which was the point I was making and stand by).

I'm a massive whisky enthusiast too but I think you're analysis here is, at best, unfair. At worst you simply come off as if you're trying to flex some kind of intellectual superiority by arguing pedantic nitpicks. Sure the study is written to cover the lowest common denominator of whiskies but the key here is that it's still the common denominator and what you're arguing are lesser common edge cases. The study doesn't claim that edge cases doesn't exist even if it's only interested in the most common cases.