NAS Whisky Discussion

@BlueNote I'm sorry you're sorry.

@Nozinan "I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology" Brenda Lee, circa 1960 something. Was she Canadian? Maybe you guys are too young. Sorry about that.

@Nozinan @BlueNote Sorry, eh!?

@OdysseusUnbound Back to the discussion about NAS. I think as far as the whisky industry is concerned, NAS stands for Not At all Sorry.

@BlueNote Didn't they play that at Blue Jays games a few years ago? Or was that on a commercial.... or some political scandal?

@BlueNote Then it should be NAAS. of course, none of the bottles actually have NAS written on the label. It's a sin of omission, not commission.

@Nozinan Maybe it stands for Not All Shit (but mostly).

@BlueNote that would be NASBM

@Nozinan The Macallan pole dancer series: Never Any Sulphur.

@BlueNote Is that true though? I've not tried them. I know the recent doublewood 12 was tainted.

@Nozinan I have had the Amber about 3 years ago and it was an absolute weakling. No sulphur though. I don't know about Sienna and Ruby because they are out of my price range for NAS Macallans. @Victor is the guy who knows all the places where sulphur lurks.

@BlueNote He does express sensitivity to sulfur.

I don't know if sulfur bothers me. I wonder sometimes if the unpleasant vegetal notes I get from some sherry-matured malts is sulfur.

@Nozinan You get a hint of it in the current 12 Sherry Oak, but it doesn't in any way spoil that one. Again, @ Victor is the go to guy for sulphured sherry cask aged malts. His nose came with some kind of built in sulphur detector.

Sulphur sensitivity grew on me over the years. I didn't really have it 8 years ago. Now I cannot get away from it.

I haven't yet sampled the Macallan Amber, Sienna, Ruby...I would not buy a bottle of any of these without trying them first.

@Victor I wouldn't buy them anyway. There is much cheaper high quality stuff with age statements to choose from.

@Nozinan Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes there is a kind of musty note in some sherry casked malts. I don't know if that is the result of the candling of the casks or something else entirely. It only bothers me when that sulphur component takes over the whole flavour profile. A hint of sulphur doesn't really bother me and I consider it part of the flavour profile.

@Nozinan I've tried the Gold, Amber and Sienna and can categorically state that they are not worth the sticker price. The Gold and Amber are an embarrassment to the Macallan name. The only way I would own a bottle of either one is if they were gifted to me. Anything more is overpaying. The Sienna is quite good, but at $190 CAD, it's about double what I would pay for it.

@OdysseusUnbound At $190 I would expect it to knock your socks off and be the special occasion or special guest dram. I have a number of whiskies under $100 that fit that bill.

@Nozinan Don't get me wrong, it's quite good, but I'd be disappointed if I spent that kind of dough on a whisky and got that....but then, I feel the same about Highland Park 18. It's quite good, but I'm glad my buddy spent the $200 on the bottle, and I didn't. At this point, I'm not sure I'll spend more than $125 on anything. Over that, it seems to be a serious case of "point of diminishing returns."

You gotta be careful about getting "tainted" by a pole dancer.

Bravo Glenrothes!! Age statements to appear on bottles, vintages to be abandoned.

scotchwhisky.com/magazine/latest-news/…

@paddockjudge interesting choices they’re making. A flavour map on the bottle too. The quote from the marketing was interesting too: seems they equate age with quality. Hmmmm.

@nooch, with a stable as deep and varied as Edrington, playing both sides of the NAS fence is a prudent move for that group....not that I'll be able to afford many.