Age is but a number ?
Many if not all of us were brought into the whisky world with the understanding that the older the better. If your dad drank 12 year old Caol Ila (and he did) then the 18 year old was the appropriate bottle for a special occasion. Age was of more importance than region or brand in those circumstances.
While the above reflects my own nascent experience of single malt, the landscape has changed considerably over the last few years with the proliferation of No-Age Statement (NAS) bottlings. For example, the Ardbeg website displays 6 standard bottles with only 2 of them have an age statement (10 year old and 10 year old warehouse pack).
I expect we should consider what’s actually more important to flavour a single malt, is it the barrel or how long it’s held in that barrel? Legally in Scotland, the label must state the age of the youngest whisky used in the final output, but often much older liquid will be included to ensure the correct taste is achieved and consistency maintained. Each batch has to provide the same agreed flavour profile, with barrels being stored in warehouses that have different temperatures and moisture rates then not all will mature at the same pace. The odds are high on that 12 year old having some older whisky blended; we felt we know the whisky better and most likely were getting more mature single malt into the bargain. And who doesn’t love a bargain.
Hold on a second, the long term message from the whisky industry in Scotland is that “Age matters”, and barrels full of marketing ££££$$$$ have been spent on promoting those older offerings, the 20/25/35 year olds, as not simply rare but also superior – with the price tag to match of course. It was also a characteristic of the industry that separated single malt from their premium spirit competitors, proudly (& loudly) proclaiming the care, attention and time spent on honest work to produce. An age declaration of a single malt trumped an “XO” or “VSOP”.
Many consumers, enthusiastic as we may be, have called foul on this change as our faithful 12 year old has morphed into a NAS replica with blaring marketing trumpets accompanied by greater price. Experts and amateurs alike can tell the difference and make a call on many NAS bottlings being younger and lighter than their aged predecessor whose nose, taste & finish are widely documented.
In this day and age of media and news overload being cynical has become the norm, while the age on the label didn’t give us that much information at least we knew it was genuine and not some marketing ploy.
For the smaller distilleries, the change probably isn’t so drastic, but image if you have a range of NAS single malts and you then need to explain the difference in the names rather than the vintages to a retailer and then they have to do the same for customers. Often in gaelic and difficult to pronounce even for those of us in Scotland, imagine those across the world where English is a 2nd /3rd / … language whereby a number and brand-name are easily translatable and understood.
Why change a winning formula?
Primarily it’s due to their own success in recent years of acquiring new customers domestically & internationally, in particular those seeking older bottlings in countries were a new middle-class has evolved and have (rightly) accepted Scottish single malt as an aspirational product. Stocks of aged whisky have been run-down, the practical solution of putting NAS bottles into the market maintained momentum and their price tags keeps the money rolling-in. Obviously it is in these distilleries best interests to continue producing high quality single malts, and they insist that standards are being retained. Surely, it is however a different offering to their loyal customers?
There is also the argument from the industry that the age on a label is restrictive for the master blenders and removing it allows greater creativity to be allowed resulting in different, enhanced, results. It’s difficult to argue with the logic that when a whisky is deemed good enough by experts it should be available regardless of age. Equally, there is little doubt removing the age restriction opens up endless possibilities for blenders to experiment, this is business after all and the increasing global popularity of single malt requires a broader range of options to satisfy different tastes, locations and expectations… and we can’t all be satisfied. Though examples exist of experimentation and branding, I would happily order a Glenmorangie Lasanta… the 12 year old status is simply reassuring.
So where does all this leave us ?
There is no argument from me that distilleries having NAS bottlings, or often a suite of bottlings (Macallan, Ardbeg), allows greater freedom to the blenders and opens up another channel to produce exquisite single malts that otherwise won’t be allowed or would be uneconomical as it would be defined in some eyes by the youngest age on the bottle.
Having sampled some excellent NAS whiskies I have no qualms about trying plenty more, but think many among us who are trying drams from across a large number of distilleries want to know more information provided for these bottlings. We like and want to categorise, and compare, with known drams, not to assess whether we’re being taken for a ride but to educate and help us navigate the market.
Info doesn’t need to be on the label but can easily and more economically be provided on a web-page, not only does this satisfy most complainants but also gets move traffic to the core site and builds on the character of the brand/distillery. In fact, there’s an opportunity to eliminate some of the snobbishness associated with single malt with consumers encouraged that taste trumps everything and a great story can go far beyond a number. Simply put, if customers don’t like it they won’t buy it, NAS are here to stay for now, once stocks have been replenished many expect the NAS suite to be reduced as “vintage” are re-introduced.
We Scots are also not overly impressed by rules and restrictions so perhaps these new bottlings were just a long time coming and in our overly governed world we really shouldn’t be complaining about those shifting the paradigm.
