Age snobs

I don't think favoring older scotches is "snobby" per se. It's hard to make a categorical across the board sweeping statement about age. Some young scotches are dynamite. Generally speaking, I tend to enjoy the effects of time on barley malt. As for corn, well, age can be a detriment even beyond ten or fifteen years depending on whether there is wheat or some other grain in there with the corn.

As for NAS, I don't like them at all. For bottles under $75, it's no big deal but when the prices shoot up over $100 I feel cheated and ripped off with some NAS bottlings. Some distilleries can get away with it because the scotch has been outstanding. Take Ardbeg for instance. I dearly love Alligator and Beist and I would pay top dollar for them. I also think that Beist has some pretty old Ardbeg in it (for an Ardbeg) especially the 2009 bottling if I am not mistaken.

Talisker 18 is superb. Not so much for the newer bottlings of Highland Park 18. The old 25 with the higher ABV is very complex and rewarding. How do these compare to younger bottlings? Well, Taliker 10 is pretty good, but I still like the 18 a lot more. HP18 blows the drawers off HP12 and the 12 is better than the newer ABV bottlings.

Bruichladdich PC bottlings were quite nice young. I've tasted the PC6 and 7. I have a bottle of the 8 but I haven't opened it yet. Never tasted the 10. would have liked to. It sold like hotcakes and I wasn't fast enough on the draw.

Generally, I really appreciate age in the springbanks (including Longrows and Hazelburns).

One thing that is not being done that SHOULD BE DONE is listing vattings of single malt that include some old and some young. Why not list what is in the bottle, such as the Balvenie Tun 1401's do. They are rare in the way they list what is in each batch. And I do think that the attention to detail is partly why they are so popular. Yes, they are quite good. At least the Batch Three, which I've tasted, was amazing. But . . . listing the proof in the pudding is partly, I feel, the reason why these vattings are so damned popular.

The industry could take a cue from the 1401's. It's okay to mix young with old. Sometimes the end result is nothing short of breathtaking. But, for gods' sakes, list what has been done. For the prices we are paying, we deserve to know. And even for those who don't care, having the info there on the bottle to gaze upon while you are taking that first sip, well, even if you're a whisky heathen and your eyes glaze over, the facts and figures are still impressive.

If I were a distiller, I would mix old and new in creative vattings such as the Beist, for example, and I would list what is in the bottles. Knowledge is power and listing such facts can only earn respect from buyers.

Typo: I meant the newer NAS bottling, not ABV bottlings. Ugh

I think somewhere back in my mind, stating the age of a whisky = better than NAS. Even if I know this isn't necessarily the case. I've have some very great NAS whiskies.

Then again, it might have something to do with me wanting transparency from the brand and master blender and distiller. An average NAS whisky hidden behind a fancy gaelic name, with a high price tag, feels less honest than if the same whisky was given a proper age statement (and a matching price tag, hah!). At least it does for me.

The distillers aren't going to limit their own options or give the public more information than they have to. They would need to be CONVINCED that they will lose money by not giving the public more whisky age information, in order to become motivated to provide that information. Do I think that they will do it? Probably not, as long as the whisky boom continues.

How important is an age statement to me? I always want to know that information if I can get it, but if I'm convinced of the quality of the product, I will buy without it. Sure, all things being equal (which they NEVER are) more time in the wood usually gives more desirability to the product. Also, knowing the AVERAGE AGE of the whisky in the bottle would be more useful to me than knowing the lowest age contained in the bottle.

It looks to me like the commercial interests hold all the cards here, FOR NOW.

I think there are two separate issues regarding age. One is the issue of age vs NAS, which in my opinion is a marketing issue. Like @Victor, I have no inherent problem with NAS as long as the product is good. However, even with the good expressions it means that producers can add a much higher price tag without justifying it on the basis or rarity of spirit (which is different from limited edition). There is a school of thought that NAS is pushing up the price of Scotch in general.

The other issue is whether a focus on age makes one a snob. And the answer to this is that it clearly depends.

We know that some older whiskies are really good. But we also know that some younger ones are too, and in different ways. Bruichladdich Octomore is great at 5 years. Bladnoch sherry matured 55% is exceptional at 10-12 years (sadly we will never know how it could have been with older expressions...).

So if you "like" old whiskies BECAUSE they are OLD, you're an age snob. If you happen to like them because the ones you've had have been GOOD, and you appreciate quality at any age, then you are not.

In my opinion, of course. If I insisted I was absolutely correct, that would make ME a snob.

@Nozinan, Well Said!

Like @Victor I would prefer to get an Average Age instead of the lowest age contained in the bottle. I would push my luck to ask for a WEIGHTED AVERAGE (I supposed that was what @Victor had in mind but I simply don't want to let any fuzzy room for interterpretation by the marketing divisions). That way it would be easier to evaluate wich aspect of the whisky is pushed forward. Of course a full description is even better.

Yes, @Robert99, a WEIGHTED AVERAGE of ages is exactly what I had in mind.

Little bump here...

Went to a local liquor store yesterday to pick up a Dalmore 12 yr (my brother-in-law's favorite), and noticed the newly released NAS Oban 'Little Bay'...

Spent several minutes chatting with the store manager; he more or less informed me of what myself (and probably many others here) are fearing - the increase of NAS scotch whisky will continue due to the world-wide demand, and limited number of properly aged spirit...

I do enjoy some NAS whisky (Ancnoc's Peter Arkle series in particular), but will this trend potentially diminish the overall quality of scotch whisky in general, and with the prices continuing to rise - should we all stock up on our favorite aged single malts before they run out, or discontinued?

Thoughts?

@FMichael That is exactly right. It is also fuelled by new distilleries who just don't have any old stock so distilleries such as Penderyn, St George's, Kilchoman, Mackmyra will always lean strongly to NAS.

That being said, I have bottle of Bruichladdich The LaddieTen and another of Scottish Barley. One is NAS and actually it is the better expression. Maybe by having the freedom of choosing form a wider range of casks and profiles they can be more creative and make better Whisky.

I fear this will not always be the case but it is an interesting point.

@tjb

I don't have strong feelings about NAS. For strong feelings visit "ALLthingswhisky.com" and there is a thread there.

But NAS does not increase the freedom of choosing casks. It just increases the freedom of not telling us what those casks are.

The SWA should relax its restrictions and allow the age of all the casks to be printed on the label. SO it would be ok to say we have 1 out of 20 casks at 5 years but the rest are 13 years old, etc...

@Nozinan I agree with wanting more info. I'd love to know the breakdown of components.

As for increasing choice surely it must. To use the Bruichladdich example the laddie had to have spirits all 10 yrs or old. The fact Scottish Barley is NAS meant they could choose from younger casks to make a very similar product in terms of profile. Therefore by having (for example) casks of 9yo they have more choice.

I was having a drink with the MD and one of the distillers from a fairly young distillery (Founded 2000) and both agreed that for their brand, NAS would always dominate their range even when they stocks of older casks.

@tjb

I understand what you're saying, but the fact is, they are free to choose whatever casks they want whether the whisky is NAS or not. They just have to call it what it is. 10 YO is called that because the youngest age is 10. If they have a good expression that contains 7 year old stuff, they just have to say it's 7 YO. Or better, how much is 7 and how much is other ages.

To me, age is not really an important factor when choosing whether or not to buy a particular scotch or whisky. I buy what I like, and what has the flavours that I enjoy. Being relatively new to collecting and buying, I generally rely on the advice of others and read reviews of bottles before I decide on what to purchase. If it happens to have an age statement, great. But if a bottle is well reviewed and has NAS, it's not going to make me less likely to buy it. Bottom line, I buy what I like, age statement or not.

As the saying goes ' It is what is in the pudding that matters'. Really, would any of you decline a 20, or 30 or 40 yr old Scotch for and NAS expression. We all make choices on preference, age and taste. But, in the end which would you really chose? What you know or what you do not know? NAS expressions are made to move the whiskey that just wasn't a seller. But, with a little mixing, it is now a drinkable product. Sounds like a blend to me. I like a lot of different whiskies. But in the end, age does matter!

@DDC

Yes and no.

Some expressions are designed as NAS to allow flexibility of content. if this is done to prevent batch variation I'm all for it. Problem is when they use the NAS term to get rid of some bad casks.

We do have a bias against younger whisky. For Peated stuff young is actually better in some ways but a Lag 16 is considered more pretentious than a Ardbeg 10. October is only 5 years and it is usually a great dram.

We need to let go our biases and buy based on the taste. But distillers need to stop hiding behind NAS . Even Glenfarclas is dropping the 10 from their 105. So why can't they just admit there are some 9 YO casks?

On the other hand, if Amrut tried to age stuff as long as everyone else, there'd be nothing left after 10 years...

@DDC Even though I prefer the more 'youthful' whisky's (10 to 14 years of age) - I just cannot help myself from thinking this wave of newer NAS scotch whisky is an attempt to meet demand - however if the quality drops then so be it.

An example of the above would be the Bruichladdich 10 yr vs the Bruichladdich Scottish Barley...While I've never tried the Scottish Barley - both Ralfy, and Whiskybitch (Youtube) feel it's not up to the standard set by the 10 yr (mind you it's just their opinion).

@mscottydunc...I'm right with you on this topic. If the quality is there, I don't care if there is three year old stock thrown in the mix to achieve said level of quality. If it is priced higher, I don't care...as long as the quality is commensurate with the higher price.

A perfect example of this for me is Aberlour Abunadh. A $95 bottle in Ontario that is NAS but, it is NCF with no E150, cask strength, and each batch is at least of good, usually great, quality. My understanding (correct me if I am off) is that the casks for each batch are usually 6-10 years old, but can range from 3-16 years old in order for Aberlour to keep the general profile as consistent as possible from batch to batch. Because of the price, I am more deliberate in researching the batches, but ultimately I have been quite happy with the Abunadh's that I have tried. A bottle of 47 and 49 each await an opening and side by side comparison in the somewhat near future, to see if the good to great trend continues!

@Pudge72 I have both the 47 and 49 open, so if you'd like to sample them before cracking into yours, send me a message and we can arrange something over the holidays. I personally like the 49 a bit better, and will be grabbing another bottle of it before it's all gone at the LCBO.

@mscottydunc I'd love to hear more about this AA doubleheader. I have both batches and won't open them till I hit 47 and 49, but if the 49 is exceptional I could consider an extra for the bunker...

There are definitely great scotches that have been blended from different years, to produce a superior product. Take the Balvenie 1401 Tun. But, really, as the demand is outstripping the supply. All of these distillers are only looking at interesting ways to meet it. Thereby reducing cost, increasing supply and profit are really their bottom line.

As an example, dropping the year aged, gives them more flexibility. Sadly, eliminating the many aged single malt choices we have, by going to a blend of their own, takes away the very enjoyment we each have to find our particular favourite that they produce.

That one cask, that is like no other............ will be no more............Again, I say, age does matter. The Distiller's job is to convince you we can live without.....they know best?? No, but they trying to sell you on it.

Now as I take a dram of a 21 year old Single Malt Balvenie Portwood, I appreciate it even more. .................Because if the trend continues, most of the buying public, will never know what an '21 Year Old Aged Single malt Scotch Whiskey' really is, nor will they appreciate - it has always been able to stand on it's own, as a great scotch.

@DDC

Of course, that 21 year old Portwood probably has older casks in it too. The 21 is just the youngest.

The reason that for instance, Glenfarclas is dropping the 10 from their 105 expression, is , as they put it, because they are running out of casks over 10 years to keep the character of the whisky the same (partly, to ensure that the avg ABV works out to exactly 60% as it is with each batch). OK, I get that, but then why not state the youngest age on the label? Call it 8 year old, instead of no information.

There is a legend that when Ardbeg reopened it used a lot of older whiskies in its 10 year old and that was why it was so good, but now it uses only 10 year old stock so the quality just isn't what it once was. If they then drop the 10, what's to stop them from bringing the quality down further?

I agree with the ATW guy who comments on the particular NAS post that NAS is inherently dishonest. There's no reason the true age can't go on the label except fear that it will turn off a consumer who has been conditioned that age is directly proportional to quality.

Or is it that id branded NAS they think they can get more money for a spirit than the same spirit would sell for at its stated age?

I think shaming people into being labelled a "snob" or "elitist" will play right into the hands of the part of the industry that is motivated by money first and quality second.

I think the following example will prove the point that this is all about money: Ardmore is phasing out their Traditional Cask NAS expression in favour for another NAS named Ardmore Legacy. So what's the big deal? The drop from 46% ABV to 40% ABV.

I'm sure it will be nice, but come on...

Some of the finest Whisky to find its' way into bottles was 8 years old: Glen farclas 8yo., Aberlour 8yo. Cube, an old bottling of Talisker @ 8yo. and several others! Would this happen today? I think not! They would have NAS, a gigantic price tag, perhaps a fancy name and label - Sure, they would still be 'killer' but at what price?

As someone above has correctly pointed out, "It's all about the bottom line".

Cheers.

Nozinan hit the nail on the head: "Or is it that id branded NAS they think they can get more money for a spirit than the same spirit would sell for at its stated age?"

I think going NAS makes it easier for a distiller to charge a premium on their spirit. No doubt the average consumer is aware that (in general) the prices increase as does the age on the bottle. But then you have one without an age statement and it can be priced outside of the typical range without creating cognitive dissonance. Instead of the customer wondering why this 8 year malt is being sold for the same price as the 15 year beside it, they can instead be romanced by the marketing flannel on the box...to quote Ralfy.

@broadwayblue "Cognitive dissonance" love that term and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Really just a way of elevating the price of a young whisky instead of having to lower it.

@frost And the Ardmore Legacy is chill filtered instead of NCF as the Traditional Cask is, besides the drop to 40 from 46% ABV. I have already written them advising that "the" Ardmore will have seen the last of my money when this change is complete ( I used to buy a fair lot of the Traditional Cask as my daily dram). They wrote back to say that the Traditional Cask is to reappear in the Travel Retail sector next spring. So really another $ grab as I understand the travel retail is quite lucrative. "Fool me twice-shame on me" Old Saying!

Consumers really should vote with their wallets but I suspect that the average buyer these days does not care about being ripped off.

@Jonesz: I agree 100%. What the Scottish Distillers are doing is despicable and voting with my wallet a simple solution. It appears that, for the most part, American Distillers have more integrity and reasonable pricing policies: They will get my 'loot' and what a wonderland of Whiskies I have not even tried.

Cheers.

@A'bunadhman AMEN! from the choir. Transparency is good for customer retention, unless you are trying to hide something. There is a cornucopia of great whiskies on this planet; I'll buy from producers I can trust.

@Frost, greed is the motive. The distillers and Bottlers can colour it any way and it will still be the same.

Macallan has eliminated their Cask Strength expression which was previously a 10 year-old expression. From 10 YO 60% abv. to NAS 60% abv. to just plain gone. Macallan realizes a better yield from each cask when bottling at 40 - 43% abv compared to bottling at 60%.

I'll not buy another Macallan until they correct this egregious behaviour.

I, the consumer, can survive without Macallan whisky; however, Macallan cannot survive without a dedicated customer base.