Getting Rid of Age Statements

Interesting article indeed. I find the Appleton rep to be 'lazy' in this article with the announcement that they WILL be bottling a 50 yo rum in 2062. That approach implies that they will just throw spirit into a cask and let it sit for 50 years, without needing to check it along the way for ACTUAL QUALITY and, come hell or high water, that spirit will get bottled no matter what.

I do not have a problem with NAS or age statement labelling per se. It's each distilleries' perogative on how they want to market their product. Ultimately, the majority of successful distilleries will be based on their ability to produce quality spirits while making a profit that is needed to continue operations.

The marketing of age statements can mislead casual/novice whisky drinkers initially, but if they care about the quality of what they are drinking they will either like that initial 21 yo bottle of 'X' whisky that they were led to first purchase, or they will research further and discover that a younger bottle from that same (or another) distillery may be a better quality offering. There will always be a segment of the population that will always go for the prestige (JW Blue, Macallan 18) aspect of whisky drinking, while others will go for the high quality, high value offerings that are out there. Most drinkers likely will fall in between those two camps, and not necessarily care about prestige and/or high quality to value options.

I appreciated the comment that was at the end of the article about getting rid of artificial colouring.

More information is always better than less. That fact doesn't change because a few people use some small piece of information, and only that information, to make bad choices. My guess is that some in the industry would use NAS status as an incentive to charge more for a mediocre whisky, not less, because now the consumer is forced to go more on the general reputation of the distiller or bottler.

I don't necessarily believe that it should be taken away and I am fine with NAS and indeed young whiskies. What does concern me is the importance that many people give to age. That said I believe the demographic that does this merely show what kind of person they are and will simply shift the emphasis, presumably to price. I would also add that sometimes for sheer interest it is good to know how long some spirits have spent in each type of wood.

I see your point but think that is a slightly negative view of the industry. As an example Auchentoshan select has won many awards and is really very good but with an age statement it may not sell very well as (I could well be wrong here) its is six years old and many consumers, I think at any rate, still choose a ten year old preferentially at the cheaper single malt end of the scale. @misslauren

@Sroberts86 Good point about the Auchentoshen. I'd been thinking of Octomore Orpheus 2.2, which recently showed up in my local store - just five years old but evidently as well regarded as some much older Bruichladdichs. I don't dispute that age is just one, sometimes flawed, piece of information. It's just that the idea of throwing away information just because it is sometimes flawed doesn't strike me as being in the best interest of the whisky consumer.

no very very true, i just meant that the point of doing so from the distilleries (some anyway) point of view might be more intelligent in intent that an attempt at day light robbery. I completely agree though. Interestingly i recently had a masterclass that finished off with a just legal, age wise, octomore from virgin barrels that was incredible @misslauren

I found this article to be both interesting and flawed. To state that having an age statement is "a sign of quality" is not true. Along the process of making this wonderful drink numerous decisions need to be made and each company will make different decisions that ultimately contribute to the finished article. Some companies produce their best whiskies at an older age and others at a younger age. For example, in my opinion, Glenfiddich produce better whisky at an older age with their introductory levels being very average. Other companies, like Kilchoman, produce great whiskies between 3-5 years that are just as good as 18+ whiskies. Each individual whisky gains it's own merit on it's taste and flavour not simply on how old it is.

That being said, I don't see the need to get rid of age statements. It is always nice to know as much about the drink as possible, not to influence your decision on it, but to help understand it better. Simply put, enjoy each whisky for what it is and base your opinion on what you drink not what you read on the label.

Very well stated, @Styles. D'accord, ici.

Three somewhat recent whisky releases offer terrific examples of NOT giving an age statement but at the same time filling a common theme in this thread: offering us as much information as possible.

Glenfiddich Snow Phoenix. The whisky's age ranged from young teens to old twenties. Even with the extra marketing push, the whisky might not have gained its wonderful reputation with a young teens age statement.

Mackinlay's Rare Old Highland Malt. A similar age range to Snow Phoenix, and another great story.

Arran The Devil's Punch Bowl. No age statement but something better: inside the lid is the whisky's pedigree--a list of each cask number and vintage that went into the whisky. Brilliant. If Arran had put an age statement on the bottle it would likely have been 6. This release raised the disclosure bar to its max height, and it's a standard I'd appreciate seeing more distilleries meet.

@two-bit-cowboy - Those are great examples. I think once you understand that the price of a whisky has more to do with the age, rather than the quality, the use of age statements becomes information about the spirit, as well as a point in the right direction toward what you might enjoy. For example, after tasting the full ranges of many Speysiders, I find I tend to enjoy them in the 15-18 year old range. Once they get a little older, it starts to feel too oaky for me. In Irish whiskey, I find Jameson's 18 year old a little too oaky, but the Rarest Vintage Reserve (their top premium blend, and with no age statement) to be a complete masterpiece. So I kind of like the way the industry uses it now - it's a mix of information, marketing, price point and general (though not specific) hints of what the quality might be.

A little late to this party but I for one prefer to have age statements on my bottle. I love reading about the bottles and how their respective distillation process goes and how long they sit in various wood casks. The more information the better

I find age statments to be interesting information to have, whilst not of overwhelming importance. What I would find even more interesting is if more (or all) bottles included the information that came with the Ardbeg Rollercoaster, in the form of a small chart showing what proportion of different ages was used in the creation of the expression.

On a purely practicle basis, I wonder if anyone has done a projection of what it would cost the distilleries to remove age statments. Whilst there is a lot of negative comment on distileries charging to much for NAS or young whiskies, nobody seems to address the habit of a lot of distileries to just add a hundred bucks to the cost of a bottle, because it has been in the warehouse an extra 5 years, rather than pricing by quality.

That five years obviously has financial implications also. The longer it is there, the less product that you have to sell at then end. Also one of the main reasons why an older whisky does cost more. @Peatpete

@Sroberts86 Those points are true, however I do not think anybody doubts that the price premium that is charged for an older age statment often has far more to do with the percieved prestige of the older product than it does with the actual quality of the product.

In my limited experience, most of the whisky awards that I have seen allocated, have been won by expressions in the 7 - 18 year framework. I cant remember the last time I saw a 40 year old walk away with an award that wasnt "for whiskys over a certain age". Of course, as I said, I have limited knowledge on the field and may have no knowledge of many such awards.

no your right it is often perceived prestige and indeed many whiskies can become too old for sure. Just saying that there is a bit more to it than just that. You don't just loose volume, specifically you lose alcohol so not only do you have less but it also means that there is limited ability to water the cask whisky down for the bottle giving less again to sell. Anyway you are correct and I hate age snobbery I was just saying there is some cause for the expense that is genuine not perceived. @Peatpete

Age Statement is a big factor in the Far East. I've had very frustrating conversations with new single-malt drinkers about this. No matter what their palettes tell them they believe older is always better. It got to a point at one tasting where I switched the topic. I assign little significance to age but I do imagine the years of a cask laying in a warehouse as I enjoy any dram. Having said all that the two bottles I've owned and consumed with the greatest age were both fabulous: Laphroaig 30 and a personal favorite the Brora 30. On taste alone I prefer the Laphroaig Quarter Cask over all other Laphroaigs including the 30. But in my opinion the Brora 30 was the finest single-malt I've ever consumed. I'd love to have a case or cask of Brora.

Some younger Whiskies might taste better than some older Whiskies (and vice-versa), but what is fairly constant is that an older Whisky costs more to produce (if one counts the cost of financing idle casks for many years). So a NAS, presumably younger, Whisky should cost less, unless the distiller is trying to fleece us.

I think that there must be quite a range of 'average ages' of NAS whiskies. NAS status probably means that there is SOME young-ish whisky present, but beyond that we don't know, unless it is formally declared by the distiller. A NAS whisky could well have 80+% old whisky and just a small minority of the younger whiskies for balance or special effects. Without knowing the exact composition of a NAS whisky we really don't know whether, on balance, or on average, it is relatively young or relatively old.

@Victor What I like about Longrow is that they are quite open about what goes in the bottle. Its 6-14yo Longrow from different kinds of casks. This information and a fair price made me want to try it. The younger whisky gives it the peaty power, while the older whisky gives it some depth. They sell whisky wíth age statements and other precise information too, so everyone can choose how they want it. Lets hope this is how its gonna play out in the future, because I like bragging about how old my whisky is :p

It all comes down to the quality of what is in the bottle. Look at A'Bunadh. Generally high quality though some recent batches have tasted a little young. Other distilleries have taken advantage of the trend to dump less quali into the bottle.

If the distillery produces a consistent and good NAS Whisky and don't use it to cut corners, I think it's fine. If Bladnoch came out with an NAS (actually they have but I can't get it here) I would be happy to give it a try.

As I have stated in other discussions along this line I feel age statements appeal to the history geek in me. Something about knowing what the age of the spirit in the bottle has a connection with the past. Yes some whisky's are great at younger ages and an age statement may not be needed. The connection to when the new make spirit went into the cask and was then bottled seems to hold a special place to me. Though age statements do not play a part in selection for me it's just a geeky part of the whisky enjoyment for me. So at the risk of sounding like an 85yr old 45yr old, you kids stay off my age statements. :)

Wow, great subject to bring up. I think the age needs to be labeled. The fact that whisky changes over time is absolutely true. Think of it this way - The higher the cost for older whisky is indicative of the cost to takes to produce it. The longer it sits without being purchased, the more it costs to produce. The age says more than cost, it lets the buyer know what to expect in accordance to flavor. Different whisky producers, as someone already mentioned, will have specific notes at specific ages. This is their personal brand of whisky. So, if you think through this a little you may recognize the silver lining which is the discovery of finding a 10 yr. scotch from one brand providing for you what you enjoyed in a previous brand at 18 yrs.