Is Scottish whisky dumbing down?

dramologist wrote:

The "isolation" point is spot on in my mind, and I know the frustration of being a whisky fan in Australia. The big whisky companies have been very slow to react to the surge in popularity of whisky and the enthusiasts' thirst for new and interesting releases. If anything does make its way towards Australia, most is siphoned off to Asia, leaving us with dribs and drabs and the odd bottle here and there (and then we have to contend with inflated prices!). This does appear to be changing though (slowly!), and thankfully there are the handful of smaller importers helping to grow the Australian market, but they can only do so much. But as an Australian that has moved to the UK for whisky, I'd have to disagree for the most part that the Scots are dumbing down. I believe that they have reacted well to the increased interest in whisky. New and interesting bottles are being released every other week, more often than not to critical praise, and they industry is doing a great job connecting with and educating the community through events, social media, etc. This is an exciting period of whisky innovation worldwide, and no doubt the Aussie distillers are right in the thick of it. The surging demand is, and will continue to present huge challenges, but I don't doubt that the Scots have the right attitude to manage it successfully. Besides, any distillery that starts to dumb down does so at their own peril...us whisky drinkers can be a very discerning bunch!

olivier wrote:

I do not think that the surge in NAS bottlings is dumbing us down; on the contrary, it is making us taste without any preconceived notion about age. However, I do think that we are paying a LOT of money for the learning experience that young Whisky can be very good. Simple economics tells us that younger Whisky should be cheaper (because the stock has rotated faster, immobilizing money for a shorter time).

talexander wrote:

Can you give examples? As controversial as that might be, it would help me understand your position to compare.

Edward wrote:

You're asking two questions. Firstly, is the quality of Scotch what it used to be? Secondly, are they creating enough variety, experimenting with new ideas etc?

As I understand, there is a correlation between quality and demand - there always has been. In periods when whisky has been less fashionable, distilleries have focussed on quality to attract and retain new consumers. In periods where whisky is fashionable and in demand, an element of cutting corners and rushing the production may be happening. So a 12yr from the 70s might be superior to a 12yr now, even though it should be the same.

In terms of new flavours and ideas, I think lots of distilleries are trying new things. Glen Morangie has produced several bottlings with unusual cask finishes - e.g. Quinta Ruben which was finished in port barrels. It's priced just a bit more than a regular 12yr. The port colours and flavours the whisky so that it really stands out. I think we will see more experimentation in cask finishes from different brands in the future.

My only reservation is that too much meddling with barrels can end up making it taste un-whisky like. There is also lots of experimenting with peat and some really great tasting younger whiskies are out there to try, at least in the UK market.

TexasPeat wrote:

I see this breaking down in a couple of ways. First, producers try to issue older whisky to make us think that it is better, but put lower quality juice in the bottle. Take, for example, the observed decline in Macallan 18 or the difference in quality between Longmorn 15 and 16.

Second, people have done comparisons between older and newer bottles of major brands such as Macallan and found that quality has been reduced. I'm remembering one video whisky review from Ralfy.com in which Ralfy compares a 1960s bottle of Johnnie Red to a current bottle; he was surprised at the decline in quality. Old Johnnie really was a decent whisky.

To be honest, I just cannot understand the pricing of items like the Aberfeldy 21 and Dalmore Mackenzie. Over US$150 for a 17 year Dalmore with carmel color added? US$175 for an Aberfeldy 21 year? Those prices seem a bit out of control. I really like both of those bottles, but I think that they are starting to price themselves out of the market for even relatively upscale consumers.

In sum, I think that the whisky world is changing in a way similar to the rest of the market. Producers are making us pay more for the high quality products and raising the prices on the heart of the range in order to make more money. They are trading on their hard earned reputation in order to pass a "just ok" product as "upscale". Am I alone in thinking that this may end up devaluing the brand?

Jeffrey wrote:

In order to determine whether the “average quality” of scotch has declined, one must either have had decades of drinking experience or access to older bottlings, neither of which I have. Now that I have disqualified myself from answering the question I shall conjecture and at some length: caveat lector.

As mentioned elsewhere, there is a correlation between demand and quality whether in whisk(e)y or any other product. Given the intense interest in scotch, one might be tempted with Mr. Puett to, well, pooh pooh its current expressions as adulterated, mass-produced bastards of its former glorious self and perhaps with some justice. An increase of scale generally does not improve “average quality”. There are macro-distilleries, for example, seeking to pump out prodigious volume while maintaining exclusivity and this is bound to fail eventually. Nevertheless, with a broadening base of Scotch drinkers, my speculation is many consumers will continue to purchase somewhat indiscriminately in the coming years even if the quality degenerates rapidly. Keep in mind, there are a lot of people who fall prey to the cultural associations and presumptions of scotch. Prestige buyers, really. These individuals, philistines at bottom, will pour caramel colored barrel sweat into their gullets with eager relish so long as it is exclusive (i.e., rare and expensive). Scotch occupies a position analogous to Bordeaux wine in the spirits world: the storied past, the cachet, as well as the drink’s inherent mysteries and allure have made it the whisk(e)y of choice among connoisseurs, despite increasing excellence among distillers in the US, Japan, and India. Because scotch has a demanding global market and a relatively limited supply, the prices have soared even as producers have increased output. This trend will continue as more drinkers discover whisk(e)y; they will turn to scotch because it is the Bordeaux dram that says they have arrived.

Meanwhile, a number of world whisk(e)y distillers will continue to focus on quality and deliver exceptional offerings. My hope is the pressure American whiskeys in particular (due to their high quality and high volume) put on scotch will create positive competition. When quality at Mercedes Benz slipped over the 1990s to early 2000s, the brand’s complacency was not challenged by Aston Martin or Bentley, but by BMW, Lexus, and other large market players. The craft distillery movement is one of the most exciting trends in whisk(e)y. However, the average quality of craft distillations remains perilously beneath the price of admission. Many craft distillers have cut corners to get a product to market. Why am I lashing these darlings of the industry? My point actually is to indicate the same critique leveled at the Scottish about sacrificing quality could as justly fit many of the small operations proliferated around the globe. This is not a uniquely Scottish problem, but part of operating a business that requires immense resources, expertise, and time. If certain Scottish producers have fallen victim to profiteering, then the worse for them. These brands will eventually languish. I see it as the duty of reviewers and amateurs like myself to stay informed and to inform each other about what is good and what to avoid.

Perhaps the average quality of scotch has declined but the number of exceptional offerings from Scotland, the US, and other countries around the world has never been so great. This is the golden age of whisk(e)y and the best is yet to come.

TexasPeat wrote:

Well put. Having had the opoortunity to try a range of new and old bourbon, I am also suspicious of the American craft distillation trend. I suppose this makes me a snob, but the painful truth is that a 25 year old small format bottle of Fighting Cock which resembles a wino's dram is a very fine whiskey. It blows away even some good new craft products. The famed Stitzel-Weller products are significantly better than the new barrel sweat, although I do not think they are always worth the price of admission. In the end, I think that you are right to say that we need to depend on each other for information. As for me, I will continue to raid my friends' collections for old bottles and spend serious money on new bottles. The complexity of scotch makes it fascinating. I still think that scotch blows away most of the whiskey cm

Victor wrote:

@Jeffrey said a lot of the things I was thinking on this topic quite well.

TexasPeat wrote:

....competition. (Thanks, Android!)

Edward wrote:

On the subject of world whisky, I really rate the Indian malt Amrut. Whilst it is not subjected to the rules of scotch it has strives to match the quality and proven it doesn't need to be Celtic spring water to taste excellent. When it comes to experiencing dramatic new flavours, perhaps it is worth remembering that you don't have to drink single malt all the time. Some Irish whiskey, blends and Bourbons are often the change I need.

Recently I discovered Blantons and found that single malt will just never deliver that same taste hit, and I wouldn't want it too.

Huge diversity from single malt is not my priority. Consistency is.

B164D wrote:

I kinda enjoy beer too and love home-brewing because you can tailor the brew to your taste. Now I was tasting a rather smoky Islay the other day and although enjoyable I didn't think it was as strikingly wonderful as when I first tasted it many years ago. I have lost a few taste buds since then but this discussion struck a chord. What I was wondering is whether any other Antipodeans, where home distillation is allowed, have built up sufficient expertise to produce whiskies of superior quality to those that can be purchased. Apologies for dumbing down this erudite discussion....

Norbs wrote:

Not being Scottish either, I also believe the Scots are dumbing down. Part of the problem is the popularity of whisky in common and more specific of single malts. This makes it lucrative to treat whisky as a pure marketing product. Four examples: 1. the so called special bottlings (for example: the same whisky, but a Port wood finish edition, a Sauternes wood finish edition, an Oloroso finish edition, a Margaux wood finish edition and so on. Why for crying out loud? Why not make one 'G'ood finish instead of five 'W'ood finishes?), 2. the so called limited editions (think of the limited HP Thor of 23.000(!) bottles. How unlimited is that?), 3. the true limited editions (just see you get a small batch, so you can put the few bottles of it on the market for a ridiculous price, because of quantity reasons instead of quality reasons) and 4. yes, the strange idea that 'many releases' a year is better than a few. Sometimes I wonder if they even taste them theirselves before they put it for sale on the shelves. So come on distilleries and especially you big owners of these: whisky is like music, it's the love for it that makes the quality. And it should be the quality that counts, not the money you're all counting. Slainte!

kiwi wrote:

Listen to the voice of inexperience ! I do not agree that the conspiracy theory is alive here . I am not finding anything any different ,except perhaps there are more and more great tasting and wide ranging whiskey experiences around now than there was even last year .Sure there are a few not so good ones and the odd attempt to trade on the Scotch reputation ,but these are usually in the bargain range . I am in NZ and we have a pretty severe tax on alcohol here in godzone,but if you shop around a bit a couple of outlets can give a damn good deal. I would name them but am not sure about the rules on advertising on this site . In some instances the discount offers are a better buy tha duty free ? I am loving my whisky all the more for the huge range of tastes that are available from Scotland ,and can not wait to try a new one when i can , I have my favourites of course . I also like to try whisky from other parts of the world so I have no bias in that way .. In conclusion I say - " If you want the best ! Go with the original " That has worked for me through my life .

Norbs wrote:

@Kiwi "If you want the best! Go with the original." These words imply what I was saying: that beside the original, there's also a (growing) lot of non-original. Let me be clear (if I wasn't already ;) I know where to find the many "originals" and still enjoy them. Yes, even for a good price. It's just that I see(!) that the other part is growing and growing, because of popularity of single malt whisky. It's not strange, it's only natural (when people know extra fortune can be made), it's the economy! So I don't know who you mean with "the voice of inexperience" (the critics or yourself), but for my opinion I first used my ears/eyes, thén my voice. Later today my nose, for a great "original" :) Slainte!

Mucksiegooma wrote:

I'm not that well versed, being an apprentice whisky connoisseur, I drink what I like and don't necessarily go by age, distiller, etc. I try not to be a whisky snob. Yes, maybe the Scots are dumbing down, with the takeovers of some distilleries by megacorporations, profit comes before quality. Sad to say.

CognacFan wrote:

Being new to whisky, I cannot say I have the hole picture of the evolution of Scotch whisky, but my opinion goes this way. Even if megacorporations try to grab all they can (and they always will), even if quality stumble because of high demand(for certain products), I think the Scotch whisky industry to be aware and concerne about the changes happening. Just to say, the last thing I saw was a Aberlour 12 Yo unchillfiltred bottle at 48% abv, meening that even the non artisan orientated producer are catching up to the mouvement, the voice of the people seems to be eard. There is some evolution in this conservative world of whisky, a rapid one considering the time line.I think Scotch whisky keeps its integrity by listening to what consumers wants and having more small producer beeing able to take their place.

Mucksiegooma wrote:

I think the Scottish whisky industry will listen to the voice of the people and will do what is needed to maintain their integrity.

Wildscotsman wrote:

This question is simple but the answer is quite complex as many of you have noted. As an independent bottler and blender I do not believe the quality of distilled spirit and aged spirit in cask has declined. Being in the unique position to sample many different casks form different producers there are so many amazing casks of whisky available. The issue comes down to quality vs. costs and costs vs. the consumer and the direction the buying consumer takes the market. Vote with your wallet! (P.S. sorry for the ramble below) Blends: Unless you are buying single cask Scotch whisky (malt or grain) everything you are consuming is blended (yes, single malts are blends) which opens the door to many different issues both good and bad. Without blending there would not be consistent brands on the shelf of single malt, vatted malt, single grain, vatted grain, or traditional blend (gain/malt). Without blending the cost of brands would be much higher with very inconsistent flavor profiles and the consumer base would be smaller. Age statements: in my opinion are irrelevant when drinking a blend of any kind (single malts included). Does age really matter when you are consuming an engineered flavor? In the end you are paying for flavor and not age. It works great for marketing and creating value as most people assume older is better, like wine. I find age more relevant when drinking single cask. There are measureable flavor profile changes at certain ages in addition to the fact that one can justify the price more simply. Proof: The lowest legal proof for Scotch is 40%. Products reduced to that proof create good value for the consumer. Products with higher proof in my opinion have a fuller flavor profile than those reduced. Higher proof means>>higher costs (less product to bottle). Colour: many consumers confuse colour with quality and do not realize that colour is supposed to come from the wood. A few hundred liters of spirit caramel goes a long way with the consumer who believe all whisky should be dark. Sorry, just not the case. Chill-filtration: Lower the proof strength to create value for the consumer has a draw back. The oils begin to separate from the added water creating a visual mess for some brands. Chill filtration solves that issues, however, it also strips away the natural fatty acids, esters, and oils which create flavor. No chill filtration means>>higher costs (more alcohol in bottle) Cost on the shelf: For every rule there is an exception. Some brands are “iconic” and you will pay dearly for them. Basically the demand high, production struggles to meet demand, and the only solution is to increase price to slow consumption. If the consumer wants great value>>lower proof, chill filtered, and colour. Consumer wants higher production quality over price>>higher proof, do not chill filter, and no added colour. Who’s right? They both are!
Independent Distilleries: Typically, the Scottish independent distilleries bottle at higher proof, do not add colour, or chill-filter. The result, whiskies with more body, flavor, and price (justified IMO). Independent Bottlers: Typically bottle single casks at higher proof to cask strength, non-chill filtered, and no added colour. The result, whiskies with more body, flavor, and price (justified IMO). There are quality issues some bottlers have more often than others but that is another topic. Micro Distilleries: Just as “micro breweries” have educated the consumer about the infinite possibilities of beer so does the Micro Distillery with spirits. The difference is that this industry is in its infancy and will have a lot of growing pains (basically culling the herd of just bad products). The threat to large drinks companies is that Micro distilleries, like Independent distilleries, and bottlers must educate the consumer about quality and production in order to get sales. This education process begins to influence buying decisions that may affect the larger companies in the future. Meaning the consumer begins to question the brand, its costs, and quality. Sorry for the ramble but I wanted to make a brief point of all the various issues and yes, there are many more!

Mucksiegooma wrote:

WildScotsman, living in the United States limits our ability to sample all of the fruits of the Scottish distillers, let alone being able to afford many of the more vintage drams. We are not ignorant, we just want to learn more about whisky.

Wildscotsman wrote:

If I came across strong Mucksiegooma it was not my intent. I know your struggle to find more variety in your whisky. My journey 10 years ago to work at a distillery opened my eyes to a world I only thought existed in a Micro Brewery. It was not until I actually had to go and sell my brands to I fully realize the extent in which many consumers here in the states were embedded with marketing and not facts of this complex drink. In many ways lessoning their experience and not enhancing it. My best advice is the best brand is the one you like regardless of cost, age, or production quality.

chrismiddleton wrote:

If it wasn’t for the opportunity to win a bottle of world whisky I would have remained silent. I am wondering ‘what is a world whisky’?

Firstly, a small correction. From the mid-19th century until the mid-20th century Australia was the fifth largest producer of whisky in the world. Over 13 million litres. The bulk came from three large distilleries with another three dozen making up the balance. The whisky was both malt and later grain for blending. Couple of these distilleries even had brands with global sales in mature Anglo and developing markets. By the early 1980s this chapter in Australian whisky distilling closed. Today, over a dozen new micro-distilleries have populated most States since 1992. Total capacity for this nascent industry is about 400,000Lals, although average annual production has been about 150,000L. Production cycles being dictated by cash flow demands.

Now to the provocative, if not a dubious question that proposes the Scottish whisky industry may have declined in quality, of ‘dumbed down’. Until the early 1990s 98% of global Scotch consumption was blended whisky. Now Scottish malts are approaching 10% of total Scotch sales. That fact alone reveals that both the range and volume of premium malt whiskey, plus the enormous growth in the deluxe blended segment, has significantly lifted the overall quality and choice of Scotch whisky. It’s not only consumer behaviour witnessed through sales which supports this fact. It is also the endless improvements made throughout the production process producing better quality spirit and ameliorations in maturation. It’s the product stuff that happens in the factories and on the fields. A consequence of these quality developments has been a dramatic increase in the range of styles, brands and expressions. Scotch whiskies are not the one-off barrels the boutique distiller will often showcase in competitions; they are long term whisky labels marketed in commercial volumes and with high product consistency, year in, year out. This is whisky gravitas. And the larger the brand, often the more premium line extensions are created to take consumers into more complex and richer taste profiles. This is the reality of the international marketplace where the consumer’s sensory expectations and distillery/brand standards are the fundamental commercial imperatives to ensure repeat purchase, frequent consumption and profitable volumes.

Product improvements and experimentation is evidenced by the constant releases of special expressions, new line extensions and new brands. Premium labels are usually the result of distilleries either enhancing product quality or seeking to achieve recognition through differentiation. Making improvements in operational and quantitative efficiencies also reduces the cost of popular labels. Hundreds, if not thousands of incremental and sometimes disruptive changes have contributed to this process of improvement, even during the past twenty years. Remembering whisky is a relatively unique product, it takes many years, even decades to travel the distance from still to bottle. Top of mind, one such disruptive event was during the late 1980s was when a new EU policy passed new conditions on access to the export of imported sherry butts from Spain. Distilleries refocused their wood programs to the increasing availability of bourbon barrels. Cheaper wood too. Experiments in wood finishing were another response to the changing supply chain, teasing out new flavour nuances to tempt the curious whisky drinker to be an active part of this new whisky adventure. Creeping change is evident across the whole process. Hybrid barley varieties. Evolving yeast strains. Chasing higher phenol levels. New maturation techniques. It’s a very long list that reveals whisky-making is ever-evolving to changing raw materials, new knowledge and differing consumer preferences. This is the antonym to ‘dumbing down’.

As many whisky brands and distilleries are now owned by global drinks companies the accusation has been propagated that the accountants have an undue influence on production procedures and expenses. No doubt in some areas they do scrutinise costs to ensure business security, especially amongst the economy and mainstream brands where the consumer is the least discerning. This is the mixer and entry point for novice drinkers. Let’s not forget whisky making is also a business and one of the most important financial measures at a distillery is cost of goods. Sales viability and business success is determined by the consumers’ price-to-value in a competitive environment. A distillery whose effort results in a whisky costing $100, but to the consumer its value is $50 may soon face insolvency. Marketing also plays its business hand here by seeking to entice consumers to new line extensions, appealing to new consumer cohorts and attempting to make their brands more exciting, more appealing. Not every label is a paragon to such progress. With thousands of whisky labels available, distilleries are catering to a wide range of tastes and price points. There will inevitably be styles and expressions that do not represent good value. But the net result is an aggregate lift in whisky quality. There are more quality labels standing on the retailer’s shelf than any other time in history.

While I am serious advocate for the nascent Australian malt whisky industry, observant to the different trajectory the industry is currently taking, I felt compelled to briefly put Scotland into a proper prospective too. The notion of ‘dumbing down’ I find disrespectful to the efforts of so many dedicated Scottish whisky-makers (yes, I know this headlined was designed to elicit responses, I took the bait) - it’s the unequivocal evidence found in the bewildering and unprecedented choice of quality whiskies exported from Scotland that made the case for me. The proof's in the whisky

Wildscotsman wrote:

Great points Chris. I also, did not realize the size of the whisky business down under. I now must find me a few drams!

Norbs wrote:

Best three responses already chosen? ;)

TexasPeat wrote:

I did recently have the chance to compare the early 1990s "screen print" label and "stenciled" label bottle of Bowmore 17 and the later version with the paper label. The difference was stunning. The Screen Print bottle was an order of magnitude better with much more complexity, showing fruit and more exotic flowers on top of the regular Bowmore profile. I also recently got my hands on a bottle of Balvenie 10 Founders Reserve. It was clearly superior (in my view) to the 12 Double Wood that replaced it. I do hope that the folks in my ancestral homeland (one of them anyway) will get back to producing better juice through better barrel selection and, dare I say it, malting barley on distillery premises.