No Age Statement (NAS) Issues - Part One
I know that I'm several months - and some very comprehensive and nuanced discussions - late to the party, and that other people with far more knowledge of the industry have already covered this issue in depth (see Curt, Oliver, Lucasz, and Gal, among others), but it bears further examination, which why I've divided this subject into three parts.
Part One (today) is just a brief summary of the issues as I see them. In Part Two (later this week, or perhaps next week) I'll be looking at a specific example of what I'll call 'age statement' or 'vintage' redaction (complete with a whisky review!), and in Part Three, I plan on taking a very close look at "The" Macallan's absurd notion that colour is an indicator of quality.
So, as everyone who's been following the whisky blogosphere in the last few months knows, the number of "No Age Statement" - aka NAS - whiskies on the market has exploded (OK, maybe not "exploded", but there certainly are a lot more of them than there were just a couple of years ago...Talisker's range has expanded with the addition of no less than three new NAS expressions in the last year alone), and the larger spirits conglomerates have been tirelessly spinning an "age statements no longer matter" / "age statements don't matter" / "age statements never mattered" narrative, which runs counter to the marketing message that has been pushed down the whisky consumer's throat for the past decade (or perhaps longer).
Is NAS whisky something new? Absolutely not. There have always been NAS whiskies on the market, in both the blended and single malt markets, and some of them are quite good: Aberlour A'Bunadh, Talisker 57'N, Compass Box Spice Tree, Brenne Estate Cask, Laphroaig Quarter Cask*, and Te Bheag, to name just a few. In fact, I can't say that I've ever had a bad NAS whisky (excepting perhaps the bottom shelf blends such as Dewar's White Label, Ballantine's Finest, and J&B Rare, etc., etc.). So what then, is the issue? Are the distilleries, given the boom in the global whisky market, running out of aged stock, as many have speculated? Perhaps, but a lack of aged stock isn't what irks me. For me the issue with NAS whiskies is one of disclosure. If I'm being asked to pay for something, I'd like to know that I'm getting quality in return for my money, and while the industry is telling us that age doesn't matter - although it apparently did a few years ago, and still seems to matter a great deal when it comes to how older, "luxury" expressions are priced (see my earlier rant on cask strength whiskies here) - it isn't giving us any reason to believe that these new NAS whiskies represent value for money, other than a "Trust us. They're good. And you'll want to pay us more money for them."-type attitude.
For example, here in Ontario, Talisker 10 year-old just broke $80 a bottle, while Talisker Storm (NAS) is priced at just under $100, and across the river in Quebec, Taliser 34 year old single cask is just over $2,500. Is Storm better than the standard 10 year-old expression? Not necessarily (see also this review). It may be different, but what justifies the extra cost? Is it because there is older whisky in it? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, and that is the point. I have no objection to paying for quality whisky, but I want to be able to make an informed choice (not to say that age is actually an indicator of quality, as I've tried some older whiskies that were terrible). It has been suggested by some that the producers should make an attempt to explain exactly what goes into each NAS expression, a step that Arran took with the Devil's Punchbowl, which Compass Box does with almost every one of its whiskies, and which Highland Park has done with Thor, Loki, and Freya. While this information isn't necessarily on the label, it is readily available on the distiller's websites.
Perhaps another question we should be asking is what, exactly, is the problem with putting age statements, even young age statements, on whisky labels? How does this restrict the industry? MacDuff International doesn't hesitate to state that the younger end of its Islay Mist expressions is eight years old, and Te Bheag's older sibling, the Poit Dhubh unabashedy carries an eight year old age statement. Similarly, Distell from South Africa is quite open about the fact that it's Three Ships Blended Whisky is a minimum of five years old (and it's reportedly quite good), and neither the English Whisky Co, nor the Belgian Owl are ashamed to admit that their entry level malts are only three years old.
So, what's the problem with the Scotch industry? Why the push toward NAS and away from age statements, especially when Gibson's (you know, that Canadian whisky brand that's owned by William Grant & Sons, who also happen to own Glenfiddich and The Balvenie) newest ads are pushing age as an indicator of quality?
*NOTE: the Laphroaig Quarter Cask is actually cheaper than the Laphroaig 10 year-old...could it possibly be because the Quarter-Cask contains younger whisky?
Part One (today) is just a brief summary of the issues as I see them. In Part Two (later this week, or perhaps next week) I'll be looking at a specific example of what I'll call 'age statement' or 'vintage' redaction (complete with a whisky review!), and in Part Three, I plan on taking a very close look at "The" Macallan's absurd notion that colour is an indicator of quality.
So, as everyone who's been following the whisky blogosphere in the last few months knows, the number of "No Age Statement" - aka NAS - whiskies on the market has exploded (OK, maybe not "exploded", but there certainly are a lot more of them than there were just a couple of years ago...Talisker's range has expanded with the addition of no less than three new NAS expressions in the last year alone), and the larger spirits conglomerates have been tirelessly spinning an "age statements no longer matter" / "age statements don't matter" / "age statements never mattered" narrative, which runs counter to the marketing message that has been pushed down the whisky consumer's throat for the past decade (or perhaps longer).
Is NAS whisky something new? Absolutely not. There have always been NAS whiskies on the market, in both the blended and single malt markets, and some of them are quite good: Aberlour A'Bunadh, Talisker 57'N, Compass Box Spice Tree, Brenne Estate Cask, Laphroaig Quarter Cask*, and Te Bheag, to name just a few. In fact, I can't say that I've ever had a bad NAS whisky (excepting perhaps the bottom shelf blends such as Dewar's White Label, Ballantine's Finest, and J&B Rare, etc., etc.). So what then, is the issue? Are the distilleries, given the boom in the global whisky market, running out of aged stock, as many have speculated? Perhaps, but a lack of aged stock isn't what irks me. For me the issue with NAS whiskies is one of disclosure. If I'm being asked to pay for something, I'd like to know that I'm getting quality in return for my money, and while the industry is telling us that age doesn't matter - although it apparently did a few years ago, and still seems to matter a great deal when it comes to how older, "luxury" expressions are priced (see my earlier rant on cask strength whiskies here) - it isn't giving us any reason to believe that these new NAS whiskies represent value for money, other than a "Trust us. They're good. And you'll want to pay us more money for them."-type attitude.
For example, here in Ontario, Talisker 10 year-old just broke $80 a bottle, while Talisker Storm (NAS) is priced at just under $100, and across the river in Quebec, Taliser 34 year old single cask is just over $2,500. Is Storm better than the standard 10 year-old expression? Not necessarily (see also this review). It may be different, but what justifies the extra cost? Is it because there is older whisky in it? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, and that is the point. I have no objection to paying for quality whisky, but I want to be able to make an informed choice (not to say that age is actually an indicator of quality, as I've tried some older whiskies that were terrible). It has been suggested by some that the producers should make an attempt to explain exactly what goes into each NAS expression, a step that Arran took with the Devil's Punchbowl, which Compass Box does with almost every one of its whiskies, and which Highland Park has done with Thor, Loki, and Freya. While this information isn't necessarily on the label, it is readily available on the distiller's websites.
Perhaps another question we should be asking is what, exactly, is the problem with putting age statements, even young age statements, on whisky labels? How does this restrict the industry? MacDuff International doesn't hesitate to state that the younger end of its Islay Mist expressions is eight years old, and Te Bheag's older sibling, the Poit Dhubh unabashedy carries an eight year old age statement. Similarly, Distell from South Africa is quite open about the fact that it's Three Ships Blended Whisky is a minimum of five years old (and it's reportedly quite good), and neither the English Whisky Co, nor the Belgian Owl are ashamed to admit that their entry level malts are only three years old.
So, what's the problem with the Scotch industry? Why the push toward NAS and away from age statements, especially when Gibson's (you know, that Canadian whisky brand that's owned by William Grant & Sons, who also happen to own Glenfiddich and The Balvenie) newest ads are pushing age as an indicator of quality?
Click to view*NOTE: the Laphroaig Quarter Cask is actually cheaper than the Laphroaig 10 year-old...could it possibly be because the Quarter-Cask contains younger whisky?