Age snobs

@paddockjudge

SO next time I find a previously hidden cache of Mac CS at a great price, you want me to leave it on the shelf?

@Nozinan, don't buy anything named after a pole dancer.

@A'bunadhman Well said.

There's a wealth of whiskey in the States that I've never tried.

Instead of purchasing scotch whisky - I should look more into purchasing some rye, and bourbon.

Good for you @paddockjudge, I completely agree with you!

The term NAS doesn't really fit all labels without an age statement, like for example, the latest Octomore has no age displayed, but the guys from Bruichladdich let us know that the batch was from 2009, same with Kilchoman,...

Other bottling like the HP origins in my opinion are the true culprits, we can not be certain which casks have been vatted to create this whisky, no certainty at all. To me, the main purpose of an age-statement is an indication of what the price should be. A 18yo cask lost more of its contents than a 12yo, plus it took up space in their warehouses for 6 more years, where it had to looked after and checked regularly as the risk of a leak or accident increases as the cask gets worn out.

@Nozinan, I would be a snob if I insisted you should not buy a "previously hidden cache of Mac CS at a great price"....and hopefully you would share.

After reading your post last night, I poured a Macallan CS. Those were the days, my friend.

@paddockjudge

Don't plan ...but something tells me if I found more of the CS at under $80 you'd probably prefer to rescue it than to see it languish on the shelves...

oops, didn't see your next post...

@Pandemonium

Good point. My interpretation of NAS is that the age isn't stated anywhere. For things like Octomore we are given the information so it doesn't count.

BUT: As Ralfy says, if it's not on the label, it's not in the bottle

So while I might trust an up to date website, if Octomore 7.1 comes out and there's no clear statement of age anywhere, there is no way to be sure it's 5 years old.

Gerry Tosh up at Highland Park, in defense of the company's decision to reduce the ABV. of several of their expressions, stated that they didn't have enough stock to continue with the higher strength and that, in fact, some of the older Whiskies will soon disappear alltogether. Gerry seems a pretty straight shooter, so there may be some substance to the many reports of world-wide Malt Whisky shortage.

I was told by the Distillery Manager at Macallan, of all places, that fine spirit in first class Oloroso needed 12 years to properly mature and not more, stating catagorically that mature Whisky does not improve in cask but will, in time, pick up a slimy character, as most Cognac does. (This is more or less verbatim) & (reliant on memory); the bald headed guy who bought casks after actually tasting the Sherry in Spain, I think he was also the manager.

Perhaps the quest for older and older Whisky has brought us unstuck; perhaps we should have been demanding better Whisky at or about 12 years and at a sensible ABV.

Wishing all members Season's Greetings and a happy dramming New Year.

Slainte!

@A'bunadhman At Lagavulin they told me the ideal age was actually 16-21, an G&M ambassador said that most needed at least 15 years, at Kilchoman they said three was more than enough to create a decent whisky, at Laphroaig they defended their Select by saying age had nothing to do with it, at Blair Athol they said that if it wasn't ready by 10 it would never be. Basically everyone tries to pose their own opinion as a natural rule.As for the "were running out of old whisky" story, I'm not buying it. For example this years release of Port Ellen was larger than the last one, even though the prices had increased significantly. As long as they can convince us their warehouses are running low, they can keep the prices high.

NAS is more about informing the customer or not, so I would prefer to see the information. I think people are aware now that certain taste profiles (sherried & peated) can benefit from being younger, while older expressions can get tired. Are we really going to stop buying Uigeadail or a'bunadh if there's a number on it? With the Glenfarclas 105, having a 9 or a 10 on the bottle would not influence my buying decision; taking the number off entirely might.

I would prefer an age statement even if it was just 3 or 4 years old. Doesn't have to be in big and bold font at the front label but probably a little write-up at the back label of the bottle along with some info on the cask used, barley strain, etc. would be nice. I'd like to know what I am drinking so that I can identify it for future reference which will translate to future purchases.

Well, I rather have a well matured NAS than a badly matured 15yo. F.e: I'd choose a Kilchoman over a Glenfiddich 15 almost every day Guess itt depends on what you want to taste. In younger whiskies you can still taste the base spirit, but if you want the woodflavors to dominate, go for an older one. I always ask myself a few questions before buying:

How many times has the barrel been used? How big is the barrel? Is it European or American oak? What kind of spirit goes in?

@PeatyZealot

All your points are valid, but what I interpret from your words is that you would prefer a good young whisky to a bad old one.

Any of the good NAS expressions would taste exactly the same if e age were stated on the bottle. If Glenfarclas 105 NAS is as good as the 10 year old version, why not just put a 8 or a 9 on it?

I think it's all about accurately representing what's in the bottle. Slapping a minimum age on the front label would not do the product justice. At the same time, based on the taste/price ratio of many NAS whiskies I think many distillers are ripping off consumers and preying on ignorance. As others have suggested before me, I think what would be fair to the distillers and consumers is to write the composition on the back label.

@asmazda

Well said...the more info the better

@Nozinan Yeah nothing wrong with how Kilchoman presents their stuff. They are kind of open about what goes in where so you sort of can imagine what its going to be like. But in my Laphroaig PX I didnt care too much what was in where for how long, it was just so nice. Also I can imagine that for a distiller/blender, its much more challenging to make something creative out of different vintages in stead of just waiting for the calendar to flip. I notice Im kind of double on this one. I really can appreciate the complexity from a great 18 or 21yo that is impossible to mimic in a younger whisky. On the other hand I have enjoyed NAS whiskies just as much at a different time in a different place. I kind of like how Highland Park works around this dilemma by producing both both classic age statements and quirky NAS lines :)

Don't you think that if all social network and all market sales sites were using a searching tool asking first for the age of the whisky you are looking for that would indirectly push whiskies with age statement and put pressure on the distilleries? I think so!

When I plan to buy a new whisky, I look for infos on the net. If doing so, I have to fill a field with the age, I will become, with time, more sensitive to it. On the long run that factor would affect my buys and...

Gentlemen, reset your Snob-o-meters! We all might think certain folks in the whisky world are the snobs, but know that most people in the (non-whisky) world would unquestinably consider us the snobs.

Just in case we'd lost sight of that: gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/…

A six-year-old blend aged in OAK for crying out loud—what a snob!

@FMichael To quote myself - I'm enjoying some Evan Williams Single Barrel bourbon.

IMHO - this whiskey rates right up there with many single malt scotch whisky's in the 10 yr to 12 yr age category.

@OlJas

Did anyone else jump out and notice the inconsistencies in the bartender's recommendation? Maybe I am a whisky snob.

@Nozinan , well, I'll give it a shot:

•He cals it a whiskEy bar, then pushes scotch?

•He calls it a high-end bar, then pushes a 6 YO blend?

•He suggests a scotch blend distilled at least "thrice"? I suppose you could use Hazelburn or Auchentoshan for the malt, but I don't know how you label grain whisky from a column still.

I read some where on the web that a generation or two ago, whisky was generally sold as blended scotch with no age statements. People generally drank certain blends of choice which meant a few non-choice distilleries had a lot of capital tied up in ageing stock. Then some bright spark started the whole age statement to differentiate his product from the others, marketing it as a superior quality product etc. - probably made a fortune in the process, I suppose, and managed to liquidate lots of old stock. The rest of the industry soon caught on and age statements became the norm.

Fast forward to today and we are faced with a different dilemma. Production can hardly keep up with demand, heavy investments have been made to built new distilleries or to expand the existing but aged stock levels are depleted. Hence the industry is reversing their position on age statements to deal with this.

LOL - we are fickle creatures.

I'll take a good age-stated 4 year old over a bad NAS with large hype

I think the reason most NAS distilleries don't want to put info on the bottles, is not that they are afraid of putting the age breakup initially, but they are afraid that they will not be able to put in more and more immature Whisky into they NAS mixes over the years, without people noticing.

@olivier , that's a frequently made complaint (accusation) against NAS whiskies, and I think it's probably legit. At the same time, let's recognize the distilleries that at least rebrand their NAS bottles when they change (or dare I say, "degrade") their recipes. A few examples:

•Longrow CV became plain old Longrow "Peated."

•Port Charlotte's NAS bottles and their Laddie clones always have a new name to denote each new recipe: An Turas Mor, Scottish Barley, Peat Project.

•Ardmore Traditional Cask became whatever that less peaty 40% version was called—even though that was degradation, at least they didn't just put all-new stuff in the old label.

•Aberlour A'bunadh might even belong on this list with the batch IDs helping us track the recipe shifts over time.

And Ardbeg Oogie doesn't belong on that list—and it's probably the most-cited example of an NAS bottle that's gotten younger over time—but at least Ardbeg has been respectable enough to slide the price down in parallel with the recipe shifts.

I guess my point is that, as much as I would prefer an honest "5 Years Old" right on the label of the young stuff, some NAS bottles still play it relatively straight.

The worst offenders are the bourbons who remove the age statement but keep a big meaningless "8" or whatever on their label.

Its an interesting discussion and has clearly stirred some opinions. The way I see it there are two reasons why a product would be released without an age statement.

The first is obvious; the spirit is very young and would adversely affect sales to be putting a 3 or 4YO statement on the label.

Now please correct me if I am mistaken here but the other reason would likely be if the average age of the whisky was high but there are one or two younger spirits in there - thus reducing the minimum age stated on the label. It is my opinion that this is the reason behind the introduction of the Macallan 1824 series. To keep up with demand they have had to use a small percentage of younger spirit even though much of it will still be well aged, but as required it is the minimum age stated not the average.

Let me know your thoughts

I forgot to mention that if we look at how the years affect the spirit we know that it will take on the properties of the cask. And with everything there is a limit, things can go past the desired outcome. There are many factors that come in to play and therefore older is not always better. The smart people making the whisky know this and the marketing team know that many consumers will assume older is better. For this reason if a great whisky is produced but contains some young spirit the obvious way to market it is to sell it as a NAS.