Why pay more for non-chillfiltered?

It seems to me that many of the new non-chillfiltered whiskies are also being bottled at a higher ABV - take the Aberlour 12: the old, chillfiltered version was 40% or 43% ABV depending on where it was being exported to ($64.25 CAD at the SAQ in Quebec, or $56.45 CAD at the LCBO in Ontario), while the new, non-chillfiltered version is 48% ABV ($74.75 at the SAQ, not available at the LCBO). I don't think we're paying for the removal of a production step, but rather for the higher ABV. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Just speculation, but I assume non chill-filtered whiskies have a smaller target group (only whisky enthusiasts, as opposed to whisky enthusiasts + casual spirits drinkers), and therefore smaller production volume.

Also, a non chill-filtered whisky at only 40% ABV would be cloudy already in the bottle at room temp.

Yes, at stated, the lack of chill filtration has more adverse effects on lower ABV whiskies (under 46%), causing cloudiness, so you will generally only see the higher ABV whiskies not being chill filtered in the first place as a result. Murky whisky isn't appealing, I guess.

I'm going to have to agree with NilsG on this one. It's a target market who don't usually mind shelling out quite a bit of money for a bottle of whisky (such as many of us.) We want our whiskies to have lots of flavors, we want our whiskies to be big and delicious and complex and tasting just like it came out of the cask. For us we're willing to spend the big money on a good bottle of whisky (at least compared to the casual drinker)

I think the casual drinker generally cares more for getting drunk, not a nasty hangover and something that may or may not be foul but can be taken with a chaser. They're not drinking for flavor, they don't care about whisky in it's natural form unlike the whisky enthusiasts. Because of that prices need to be low to do the mass sales that Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, Chivas, Glenfiddich, Glenlivet, etc name the distillery but use their entry level whiskies that are going to appeal to everyone who casually drinks. But those non chillfiltered and even more those cask strength whiskies tend to attract the whiskies like honey attracts flies. We'll pay the premium for the authentic stuff.

the argument for non-chill is that it's like a fat, juicy steak. if you keep all the lipids and congeners then it has more flavor than a whisky that has a chill filtered process. so, just think of a fat steak and when it gets cold, if you scrape out all of the fat, you're not gonna find as much of a flavour profile as a steak that has all the marble fat and stuff.

back in the days, they started using the filtered process because when the scotch made it over to cold areas like the midwest in the USA (yeh, blame it on Amerikuh) during the winter time, the bottle would cloud up. because of the cold, the fat started to congeal and the whisky got cloudy, so people would send it back to the liquor stores and say, "there's something wrong with my scotch." so, in order to prevent those kinds of returns, they started to produce filtered styles of whiskies, where they'd take out the lipids, etc to avoid that kind of cloudy situation. as more and more people are getting into whisky, they're learning that using the non-chill process has more flavour profiles and complexity than chill filter process. so, in short, that's why the cost more..because there's more flavour and complexity to those spirits in general. :D

in addition, this process is also a way of allowing them to bottle something to appeal to people in the middle: meeting a common ground between an 80 proof (which is something to play on the safe side to amuse the main stream crowd) and the cask strength crowd (hard core whisky drinkers who like to cry a little every time they swallow something 120 proof). so, there's quite a few bottled at 92 proof, non chillfiltered.

Thanx! this is so helpful, this forum rocks!

As others have already pointed out - non-chill filtered whisky should in fact cost less since it's taken less time/money to present it to us consumers when compared to a whisky that has gone thru the chill-filtration process.

I'm guessing them wily Scotsmen figured out another way to seperate us from our hard earned dollar, but since it's the "latest craze" in the whisky industry we really have no choice other than not buy their products with hopes of them lowering their monetary demands, but I for one won't wait that long since I happen to enjoy the flavours of non-chill filtered scotch.

Non-chillfiltered whiskies are more expensive since they have a higher ABV which means they are taxed more. It's that simple.

@Mantisking I think that's true, and I believe we must add PeatyZealot's first thought: "...whisky is more expensive than water."

At a higher abv a barrel produces fewer bottles. If a barrel is worth $X,000 to the distillery, the cost per bottle must naturally go up for the distillery to recover the barrel's full value.

@lostboyscout sorry for the thumbs down vote. I was in complete agreement with your post, but my stupid smartphone and my big fat thumbs had a disagreement!

Or is it that 46% vs 40%, you get less water in your whisky!

that means a difference of 91ml, a little bit over 3 ounces @JoeVelo

for a 700ml bottle (98ml for a 750ml bottle) @JoeVelo

So, let say we have a bourbon barrel of 200 litres. After 12 years in your warehouse, you get 175 litres of whisky at 58%. You dilute it with your so great water to 46%, you get approx 221 litres or 295 bottles. For a bottling at 43%, you get 236 litres or 315 bottles. Finally, for a bottling at 40%, you get 254 litres or 339 bottles. So non-chillfiltered at 46%= 295 bottles; chill-filtered at 40%= 339 bottles. A difference of 44 bottles, over 14%. Any question? (yes, I'm a pharmacist!)

@JoeVelo Thanks for

@JoeVelo that very

@JoeVelo informative input ;p

@JoeVelo oops, I was gonna give you a thumbs up for your comment but as so often on connosr the opposite thumb was clicked by mistake. You should actually have two thumbs up on your last comment.

I also agree with BlissInABarrel for the taste side of things @NilsG

@JoeVelo wow way to break it down! :) that was so awesome !!! Great breakdown on the bottle yield!!

To resurrect this topic...

Has anyone else had hits, or misses with non-chill filtered whiskys?

I really like the Aberlour A'bunadh, and 12 yrs (especially the 12 yrs)...

I'm somewhat indifferent with the Ardbeg Uigeadail (it's apples, and oranges, but I prefer the Lagavulin 16 yrs).

I do not care much for the Glenmorangie Astar (it's apparently the non-chill filtered version of their 10 yrs Original which I happen to prefer).

Anyone else have any hits/misses?

Oh - and I forgot all about the recently released Balvenie 12 Single Barrel...Really nice!

Glenlivet Nadurra is so much better than the standard 12 yr Glenlivet.

Those 2 mentioned above get big hits for me.

In short I pay more for non-chilled filtered because it's worth it to me. :)

@PMessinger Not to beat a dead horse, but have you ever had a un-chill filtered whisky that you were indifferent to, or didn't care for?

@FMichael Lol come to think of it no most of the UN-chilled filtered have been awesome. I have really enjoyed the Scottish mist that develops from a few drops of water. :)

Just obtained a bottle of Aberlour 12 Non Chill. My review will be forthcoming. But I can report it is certainly worth the $55 that I paid for it.

@FMichael Have never had any non-chill filtered that I wasn't pleased with. I've had a couple of SMWS drams (they never chill filter right?) that weren't as good as expected and therefor a bit of a let down, but they were still good whiskies.

@NilsG They indeed don't chill filter their whiskies at all. It's one of their big selling points in my experience (at least in Australia) that being said I'm with you, I've had some SMWS bottlings that weren't as good as I expected them to be, but I don't believe I've had a bad SMWS whisky. Looking forward to visiting their bar in edinburgh!

@rigmorole Looking forward to that review!

Now it needs to be said that I've only had 1 bottle of the A'bunadh so my experience with that whisky is limited, but I gotta admit to enjoying the 12 yr non-chill filtered even more than the A'bunadh.