New 15 YO Whisky From Ardbeg?

I agree with you, last bottlings OB Ardbeg are NAS (no age statement) becouse these bottles are younger than 10yo (like Ardbog!). This strategy is a consequence of the HIGH purchase request! In my opinion this is a suicidal strategy in a long time!

I can't say I particularly mind the lack of age statements on Ardbeg bottles. Giving their whiskies a name instead of an age is obviously something that sets them apart from other distilleries. Certainly, it has proven to be a very effective marketing technique.

I think you have a great idea here but I really don't care if they do or don't use age statements as long as the quality of the whisky is maintained. I do also think that older age statements can generate sales even when the quality of the whisky is lacking.

@rigmorole, a lot of people are asking the question, some rather cynically, about the phenomenon in the industry, not just Ardbeg. We see the same thing with the Macallan color releases (Sienna, etc.) There was an interesting thread on the Whisky Advocate blog:

whiskyadvocateblog.com/2013/04/…

My sense is that distilleries do it because they're putting younger alcohol into the bottles and want to be able to keep up costs and focus on the content rather than relying on the age on the label. Ardbeg and others have probably done it to some extent because they're running low on older stocks and are increasingly reliant on younger whiskies. With whisky, we're so used to seeing price correlated with age, but now producers are trying to distinguish the two somewhat when it's convenient. I think that there's something to be said for the lack of focus on age and more on the content, but it's tricky when the costs remain fairly high.

The Uigeadail age is very batch dependent. The original releases allegedly had a higher amount of more aged whisky due to the distillery having more old stock (it was closed for a few years). I am not sure how old the current expressions are, but the consensus is that it is significantly younger.

Thanks for the link @numen! A very interesting read.

Went to Paddy's in Downtown Portland tonight. The bar wanted $40 for a glass of Macallan 18. That's rather steep. I was at a bar called O'Connor's over in Multnomah Village about nine months ago and a glass of Macallan 18 went for $22. I thought that was steep then. Little did I know that prices would go up up up! Yes, O'Connors charges a bit less for drinks than Paddy's due to differences in rent, etc., but still. The differential seems to exceed rent differences for each respective business.

The escalation of prices with hyped up no age statement whiskies seems to be jacking up aged statement whiskies. The whole frickin lot seems to be exploding, price-wise.

That's why I'm a fan of Glenfarclas. I think the integrity of that distillery is exemplary. To me, both the whisky itself and the bottles with age statements represent everything that is good about tradition and clear, up-front labeling.

Yes, I have noticed that the Uigeadale used to be better. It doesn't taste quite as good to me any longer. It's still good, but not as good as it was with the older casks mixed into the blended single malt (from the same distillery, of course).

When it comes to whisky, age matters, generally speaking. There are always exceptions, but age does matter.

It's kind of the equivalent of "size matters" in another avenue of life that women tend to fib about. I think "no age statement" whiskies are, in some cases, very much like women saying that "size doesn't matter."

Generally speaking, in the majority of quality scotches, age matters. And, yes, more scotches are really "single malt blends" than single malts if we really go by what's in the bottle. From the same distillery, yes, but still blends of different casks and ages of single malts. Tucking a few really old casks into the blend is usually a very good idea. Just ask somebody with an original first edition Uigeadale, and a recently bottled one right alongside the other. Compare the two, and then get back to us. I think we pretty much know the outcome to that side by side comparison.

And, yes, I've now drunk four drams. Sorry if my honesty has exceeded my tact in this last reply.

I'm on board with you here. I do not like the trend on NAS whiskies. More information is always better for the consumer. If I am paying upwards of 100 (or more) per bottle, I don't think full disclosure is too much to ask.

Is age everything? No. Especially with peated whiskies. If your desire is a peat blast, aggressive and in your face, you want a younger whisky. If you want that aspect of the expression mellowed, age is your friend. It all depends on what you want, and, like region, age is a factor which can inform you.

I would love to see a 15 YO Ardbeg, but at this point, I fear it would be out of my price range. The price increases I have seen this year alone tell me that.

Hey Rig, I bought a bottle of Macallan 18 at the distillery back in late 2011 for the equivalent of about $115 (72 GBP). At that time it was $250 here in BC. It is now $300, twice the price of HP 18, almost 1.7 times the Laphroaig 18. A royal rip off any way you look at it. The Ardbeg ANB was an 18 year old and it was spectacular. I wish I had loaded up when it was around at $120. I'd love to see an Ardbeg 15 just to compare it to the NAS Ardbegs, but like Onibubba says, it would probably be priced well above most other 15 yr. olds. except perhaps the Macallan 15 Fine Oak which is currently at around $150 here.

I don't have a problem with reasonably priced NAS offerings. I'll buy them as long as the reviews indicate that they are worth the investment, but I'm definitely with those who would like to see fuller disclosure on NAS bottlings. If it is not absurdly young, then tell us what's in there and how old it is. We all love whisky and we are still going to buy it, but most of us want the best bang for our bucks and get a little resentful if we feel we have wasted some serious cash on a dud, and probably a dud that the distillery knows full well is a dud.

As I understand it, due to Ardbeg being mothballed back in the 80s, they're actually sitting on a stash of older whiskies. However, due to their younger whiskies being so fashionable as of late, they are simply delaying the release of the older stuff because they know it will fly off the shelves once released. But the longer they wait, the more than can ask for it and believe me, old Ardbegs will command super premium prices. As others have also mentionned, I agree with them about full disclosure when you're paying $70 for just a 10 year old. The special bottlings cost more and say less...

So are both the Ardbog and Uigeadale less than 10 years old? I like to see age statements no matter the age and it doesn't influence my purchases as much as the industry may think. I've never had anything older than 15 years old and most bourbons I drink are less than 10 years old and I have no problem with it.

All Ardbeg's standard releases are at least 10yo... This was told to me personally by an Ardbeg Brand Ambassador.

I would love to see more older products from Ardbeg. Despite all of their marketing hype I do give it to them that they rarely produce a dud. I hope the above poster is correct and Ardbeg is sitting on older stocks from their moth balled time but I think we are looking are casks much older than a 15 or 18 then no?

As for age statements here is why I think they are important. It represents a tangible investment by the distillery to justify asking a higher price. That is as concise as I can put it. We all know it doesn't mean older is better. No age is not everything, just look at Kilchoman who produces some great drams at the age of 5 years give or take. These companies can say whatever they want in terms of age meaning nothing, and to a degree they are correct, but anyone with half a brain should know what it means - they don't have the stock to keep up. Age statements have and always will be king in the eyes of the consumer. Now we have an ideological shift saying the consumer should trust the blender and what is in your glass. Look at Macallan, in theory their new line is great it is based on taste and not age. They say that a young whiskey can be just as good as a 30 year. Ok but why is the Ruby being sold at a huge difference then the Gold? Obviously it is because there is older whisky, and there is where the paradox lies in their marketing.

Personally I want honesty from my producers of whisky. If your whisky is 7 years old who cares as long as it is good. Don't throw a random name and some bogus story behind it to try and sell a half-assed release. Show some confidence in your product and integrity in your brand.

Tried the Ardbog and Day yesterday. Both delicious. I liked the Day a bit more, I think. Yes, indeedy: Ardbeg can certainly hit the spot.

Next time I head to the pub, I will certainly order a glass of Beist, even though it's so darned expensive these days. At least I can get me paws on a taste of it still.

My latest bottle of Uigeadale at home is nearly gone; I was forced to pour the remainder in a small bottle with a wee cork in it.

I'm trying to decide which Ardbeg to buy next. . . . If there was a 15 to be had, I would lay down the cash for that. But alas, there is not an impressively aged Ardbeg to buy. . . yet.

I was pondering this discussion today while swimming laps in the pool, and the thought occurred to me that casks which previously held ice wine would also make for an interesting influence on the peaty goodness of Ardbeg.

The Pacific Northwest of the USA is home to some of the best ice wines on earth. I think casks that previously held ice wine would make for an interesting choice in which to age fine peated whisky.

The one drawback that I see of age statements is that they disincentivize blending whiskies of different ages. If you want to balance the characteristics of an older and younger whisky and put an age statement on it, you're selling it as the younger whisky. If age statements have meaning and older age statements mean higher value, then that's a negative and you may be better off with NAS.

NAS can mean "we want to sneak younger whiskies out the door" or it can mean "we want to achieve a target taste profile by blending old and young whiskies together, and we do not feel that an age statement would represent the value/characteristics of the product".

Unfortunately it's tough to separate the two except by reputation and of course quality.

@mattsteg

That is a very fair opinion. Obviously a 90% 25 year and 10% 8year blend is more valuable than if the ratios were reversed. Batch variation is fine but a fair amount of blends simple arent what they were when first released. Is that a result of the inconsistency of the malt or changing the ratios of the blend? Not that it would ever work but I would love to see something like an ingredient list on the box, ie: 18 year, 6 year, 30 year, 12 year.

I think it would be nice for more distilleries to skip age statements on some of their expressions since i believe a lot of people cant see the difference between old whisky and good quality whisky.

If Ardbeg would release an older version tough, i would be very interested in trying it and most likely also buying a bottle or two, however i wonder, would a whisky such as Ardbeg benefit from age?

It all sounds very delicious - myself, I'm half expecting to see a 17 year old enter the core range in about a year, but we'll see. An older Ardbeg along the lines of the Beist would be fantastic.

@Timothy-James I like the ingredient list idea. However, that seems like it would reqire extra effort on the distiller's end, meaning extra cost (maybe on labels). A message to the distillers, just tell us what's in there! I buy for the flavor, not age.

Look for independent bottlings if you want aged Ardbeg! If the Uigedail or the Corry was at 46% it would be a lot cheaper so the price is not that bad for a 'young' cask strength. Same goes for the Laga 12, I wondered, why pay more for a whisky that is 4yrs younger? I don't want to know what would happen with it if brought back to 43% like its older brother... Remember, we are in the most interesting whiskytimes since they started putting spirit in barrels :) Long live internet!

I read online that Ardbeg was acquired by Glenmorangie in 1997. I think this is probably the reason why there is no 15 YO Ardbeg yet - they are probably still building the whisky stocks up.