Comments on: What does a whisky’s age really mean?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:16:11 +0000

You are simplifying things, to put it mildly. Is Laphroaig 30YO just a 15 YO that did not sell (you know history behind it, do you?)? Is Highland Park 30YO just unsold 12YO, 15YO or may be 18YO? How about Karuizawa single cask whiskies? I could go on and on.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:15:01 +0000

Age just means they can’t sell it. In the old days, they stored what they could not sell as a way to avoid paying taxes. These days, the goverment says anything older than 4 years they have to pay taxes on. With temperature controlled environment, the product can be forced in and out of the inside of the barrel. There is no benefit where you see them store the barrels in old barns, that just represents what they can’t sell!!

By: Pernod of good new whiskies, but where are the great ones? | What Does John Know?

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:28:16 +0000

[...] there are some exceptions. Some producers are sitting on older stocks, and they are poised to take advantage of [...]

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:59:59 +0000

Well, I don’t agree on the fact that a whisky’s age has gone from bottlings, or that there is a trend its not been putting on anymore. What we have seen is an addition of bottlings with NAS (it started many years ago), but not on the expense off bottlings with an age statement.
I still feel that the large majority of bottlings have an age statement of some kind.
NAS whiskies are also hard to catagorize as you can find almost any kind of whisky in this catagory, from very young to very old, from general expressions to very limited ones. One factor why some bottlings don’t have age on it is that there is a lot of age=quality misbeliefs among the general public, or the people who bottle whisky are afraid there is this misbelief

Macdeffe

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:29:57 +0000

I believe that the only restriction is that whisky is spirit matured for minimum of 3 years(in Scotland).
Otherwise, age statement is optional and those who have lots of young whisky would follow the example of Ardbeg, Glenmorangie and Bruichladdich, among many more, and will drop the age statement and give their whiskies some fancy names. If there are more who accept this concept, the age statement will start disappearing. Fortunately, there are still distilleries that do not play this game.

By: mongo

mongo — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:20:46 +0000

i’m curious: are there any rules about what whiskies can be sold with no age statement? can any distiller decide to sell a bottle that is all whisky of one age (say, all 3 year old whisky from one cask) with no age statement? is the posting of age statements completely at the discretion of the distiller?

By: Serge

Serge — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 07:26:26 +0000

Hi Steffen, you’re right, some young whiskies can be complex as well. There are always many exceptions so I guess it all comes down to each drinker’s experience. BTW I just toyed with some figures and published an E-pistle on Malt Maniacs about that very topic. You’ll find the link in the ‘good new bad news’ section.
Very globally, I find it a bit stressful that whisky would lose its key factors one after the other. Own maltings, gone. Own cooperage, gone. Own warehouses, gone. Own way of firing the stills, gone. Sherry, almost gone. Now age… gone?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:13:56 +0000

Thank you Steffen. I read it with great interest. I believe that with so many casks (and ages) “blended” in, Ardbeg Rollercoaster has to be very complex

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:56:05 +0000

Hi Michael

I don’t keep particualr records of what I am drinking, but straight of my mind I can mention :
Amrut Fusion (NAS, 5yo?), Arran Peacock (approx 12yo), an Old Pulteney bottled at the distillery (15yo), Bladnoch 8yo 55%, Rollercoaster, Balblair 97 (10ish)

I do find a lot of complexity in OB’s like Glenmorangie 10, Cragganmore 12, Glenlivet 12 if my palate is rather fresh

In the case of Ardbeg i’ll have to admit that older versions have shown me the greatest complexity I have seen from this distillery, especially a LOTI, 21yo and PING1, but I had several other expressions in this catagory which I found less complex than the rollercoaster

Sprinbanks, my favourites are spread even over the age spectrum, nothing beats the 100 proof (European version) for me

BenRiach, I found the 25yo much superior to the 30yo, but I guess both is considered old)

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:08:08 +0000

Steffen,
If I may, which whiskies (under 20YO) did you find the most complex? Just curious.

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:21:43 +0000

I disagree. It’s just your kind of complexity, the kind of complexity you prefer – The kind of complexity that is in older aged whiskies. I’ve been reading your reviews for many years and there’s no doubt that you have a side for older whiskies (and sherried and peaty) and nothing wrong with that. Younger whiskies, which I find very complex, and GREAT, you tend to dislike (rating wise). So for you age is better and more complex but not (neceserily) for me.

So we can fully agree that a whisky has to be copmplex to be great. But I don’t agree with the fact that a whisky has to be old to show great complexity, not at all

The whiskies I found most complex whiskies was all below 20yo

PS Don’t get the impression I don’t like old whiskies, I like them as well

Macdeffe

By: mongo

mongo — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:17:41 +0000

i assume that if a distillery puts x% of their distillate away for longer periods that takes up warehouse space and reduces the amount they have available for the younger versions. also in the time that a 21 year old takes to get bottled those casks could have been used twice for 10 year old whisky. if cask prices are also insignificant that may not matter either, but i’ve read that high quality casks (sherry in particular) are in short supply for many distilleries.

but if these result in negligible cost differences in reality then the analogy does not hold, and i’m due vast refunds from the distilleries.

(and please note that i’ve not said anything about the subjective issue of “quality” differences between younger and older whiskies–i don’t believe age is an automatic improvement; i’m just assuming there are rational cost differentials–though like serge i also would not say that these justify any particular markup.)

By: Serge

Serge — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:05:12 +0000

Plus financing, Joel. Say 70cl cost £2, after 40 years without any sales, I guess the costs will lie between £15 and £20 plus warehousing indeed. Not saying that justifies a £1,000 price tag, of course.

By: Joel Caskstrength.net

Joel Caskstrength.net — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:30:57 +0000

I’m not sure I get your point? Do you think that a 40 year old whisky costs a lot more to make than a 15 year old whisky? Apart from the obvious fact that there tends to be less whisky in a cask over time, the only additional cost is warehousing which is minimal.

From figures I’ve heard in the business, there isn’t much difference between the actual cost of a 10 year old and that of something much older, save for the fact that there will be less of it in the cask.

So your point works on blends, where the drinks companies may be selling each other older stock at a higher cost, but when it comes to a single malt then they all cost pretty much the same to make, whatever the age.

Joel

By: Henry H.

Henry H. — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:40:06 +0000

Indeed, the more information the better. But let’s not stop at age and dates. How about detailed cask and vatting information? For example, Arran tells us the Peacock is a vatting of 13 bourbon barrels and 7 sherry hogsheads, which is great to know. Yet there is more: How many refills? What type of sherry? Again, the more information the better.