NAS (No Age Statement Whiskies)

[ayepatz]

Coming through Heathrow yesterday, I was surprised to see how few whiskies there are left which display their age on the bottle.

As a confirmed aged single malt man, I am extremely disheartened by the recent swamping of the market with NAS Brands.

The age stamp used to be a fair indicator of value. Older whiskies cost more, as the Angels' Share increases the longer they are barrelled.

While the new NAS re-branding movement may indeed free up Whisky-makers to increase sales in the short term by allowing them to use stock as young as 3 years old in the mix, this seems somewhat short-sighted in the long run. Using up younger stock to increase market share now will only result in a greater shortage of aged stock at a later date.

I worry that the consumer is getting swindled in all of this.

Younger scotch is being flogged at similar prices, if not slightly increased prices, to the age dated scotch of recent years.

A fancy bottle and a shiny label are no substitute for resting-time in a barrel.

[Guest rob]

It's causing quite a stir amongst those in the whisky community. Some very well known commentators have boycotted NAS whiskies from being featured in their reviews.

I agree with the anger and frustration, as it really is removing transparency from the purchasing decision.

Having said that, there are some very good NAS whisky. In fact, I'm enjoying a Cask Strength Glengoyne.... however, it would be nice to know what's in there. Especially considering that 2 years ago it was a 12 yo designation.

[sengjc]

I am ok with NAS so as long as they are priced reasonably.

[Rye]

The NAS trend is frustrating and confusing to me.

I haven't bought a bottle of Macallan since their switch, and I find myself buying more indie bottlings so that I know what I'm getting, but the price of many of those is getting inflated out of reach now, given they used to be a bargain way of buying

[ChanceSchmerr]

I really detest it, personally. I get that stocks are getting low, but they are essentially telling the customer that they know what's best by selling them younger whisky and saying it's just as good (or better) than what the customer already likes. I call BS on that - what ever happened to "the customer is always right"? I avoid whiskies like Macallan now like the plague. Doesn't help that they continue to sell the age-statement bottles in Asia, where they have admitted personally to me that they can "charge what they want". Bloody outrageous.

If the prices were reasonable based on what you were getting (ie YOUNG whisky) then I'd have little problem, but they charge more for these NAS bottles than they did for the old 10s and 12s, regardless if "duty free" or not! Highway freaking robbery!

Of course, i am a bit of a hypocrite, as some of my favorite Ardbegs are NAS - but they have done it for a while and the quality remains high in their case. The new Macallan Colour range taste like ass compared to the old 12 and 15 yr bottles.

Rant over. Back to my Laddie 10yr!

[ChanceSchmerr]

I should note - SOME of my favorite Ardbegs are NAS, but my favorite 3 are all aged (Airigh Nam Beist 1990, 1974 single cask and the 10 yr)

[Ryan]

The no age statement thing is big now because there is none of the aged stuff left. Over the last 10-20 years whisky drinkers in China, India, Japan, Russia and Brazil discovered the stuff and bought it all.

That's the reason there is now more named stuff, or aged in different types of barrels. The same is happening irish whiskey now.

A new Middleton launched last week named after the oak tree from which the barrel it aged in was made.

A new Green Spot launched that was aged in Chateau Leoville Barton casks.

Don't hold your breath for much aged statement stuff in the near future.

[ayepatz]

I used to love Macallan, but really don't enjoy the new stuff as much.

But it's like Ryan says - new markets have left the trade bereft of aged stock. Interestingly, the same markets' voracious demand more or less put paid to En Primeur as an affordable way into the Bordeaux market. At least the winemakers held to their traditions, and didn't start trying to reinvent the wheel.

My worry is what will happen when the US finally removes all restrictions on CCs and demand goes through the roof.

Will they see the money pouring into the Scotch market, and follow suit with changes to blending, manufacture and marketing?

[Guest rob]

The Japanese whisky company ***** has announced that it's Yoichi and Miyagikyo age statement whisky will be discontinued. Basically said that their aged stocks are depleted and any remaining and new whisky will now be directed to the remaining aged statement Taketsuru brand and other NAS product.

[Lotusguy]

It's an unfortunate trend. Some NAS are good, others are not. I gravitate more and more to the independent cask strength bottlings but they are not all hits and if you do get one, chances are that it's sold out by the time I am ready to buy more

[Habana Mike]

True and disappointing, not to mention frustrating.

Was at the bottle shop today contemplating a buy and ended up giving the Oban Little Bay Small Cask a shot even though no age statement. Only date on the bottle was 1794.

Not a bad whisky but the tongue says some young in there.....

Oh for the days of non-chill filtered and uncolored drams with age statements.

[R0ut3]

I don't mind NAS whisky as long as its good--there's plenty of **** whisky out there with '12 years' stamped across the front of the bottle. There's nothing wrong with young whisky, Kilchoman has been putting out great products and the distillery is only 10 years old.

[potpest]

This is dissapointing to me aswell. I've just heard that Glenlivet 12 yr old will no longer be available in the UK and Germany to be replaced by their Founders Reserve NAS dram.

It's akin to Habanos removing the box dates from all future cigars to me. It's almost as if they're saying you don't need to know how long this has been maturing for, just drink it.

[polarbear]

I just hope this depletion of aged stock is rectified in the future (10+ years)

If distilleries decide to stop producing aged lines all together and stick with the easier (and cheaper) NAS route, whiskey in the long term will suffer

Hopefully this NAS trend is simply a short term solution to a short term problem

[Lotusguy]

I think the pendulum of the single malt craze will eventually swing back to oversupply - the question is when.

[ayepatz]

I just hope this depletion of aged stock is rectified in the future (10+ years)

If distilleries decide to stop producing aged lines all together and stick with the easier (and cheaper) NAS route, whiskey in the long term will suffer

Hopefully this NAS trend is simply a short term solution to a short term problem

The problem is, where is that stock going to come from if they're using all their younger stock to create these new NAS brands?

They'd have to up production significantly.

[polarbear]

The problem is, where is that stock going to come from if they're using all their younger stock to create these new NAS brands?

They'd have to up production significantly.

I cant speak for Whiskey but I know that bourbon manufactures have been stock piling barrels in record numbers since early 2013 when the boom seemed to be in full swing

The larger distilleries were storing 5 million barrels a year, a number unheard of since the last bourbon boom in 50's.

Obviously Bourbon is a different beast than traditional whiskey (it has to be aged for a minimum of 4 years before it can be marketed as a Bourbon) but it does mean if the bubble bursts in the next 4-5 years that Bourbon makers will have a huge stock pile of barrels that they're better off aging to sell at a premium now that supply has out numbered demand.

Hopefully something similar is happening to Scottish, Irish and Japanese producers.

Even younger blends would need some barrel time, so they would need to have a stock pile of fresh barrels in order to stretch their aged supplies as long as they can. If the boom winds down within the next 5 years then manufactures may rethink the purpose of their stock piles and reintroduced aged whiskeys in the future.

The alternative to NAS whiskey could be what Makers Mark tried a while back, dropping their proof from 92 to 84 in an effort to stretch their old stocks a little further

I'm not sure which I'd prefer

I'm not a huge whiskey guy though, so my comments could be way off

Please correct me if I got anything wrong

[JohnS]

I'll honestly say that I haven't thought about it all that much until today when I noticed my local Dan Murphys Liquor outlet had Hibiki Japanese Harmony on sale instead of Hibiki 12 (or 17). To say I was somewhat peeved would be an understatement.

[ayepatz]

I cant speak for Whiskey but I know that bourbon manufactures have been stock piling barrels in record numbers since early 2013 when the boom seemed to be in full swing

The larger distilleries were storing 5 million barrels a year, a number unheard of since the last bourbon boom in 50's.

According to the Scotch Whisky Association, there are around 20 million casks currently ageing in Scottish warehouses.

How much of this is destined to be used in NAS Scotch after the 3-year minimum maturing time, and how much will be set aside for longer term ageing is anyone's guess.

Given the amount of NAS Scotch currently flooding the market, and the fact that many of the top distilleries are now no longer offering age dated stock, it would appear that the industry is trying to force a change in how the consumer views whisky - only colour and taste should be considered, age being unimportant. If successful, they will no longer have to worry about stockpiling for the distant future and can significantly increase production (and therefore profit) of their new brands.

In 2012 Single Malt Scotch accounted for only 8% of total Scotch Whisky production, but generated 18% of the income.

The trade-off for that profit was always the waiting-time until the Scotch was mature. This waiting-time, and the resulting "angels' share" (that amount of spirit lost to evaporation over time), was reflected in the higher price point.

By law, the age statement on Single Malt Scotch must reflect the youngest spirit used in the mix. For example, if a distiller wished to tweak a 12-year old malt by adding a splash of the 10-year old spirit, the resulting whisky, by law, has to be named a 10-year old, even if most of the volume is 12 years old.

By removing the age statement from the bottle, distillers can reduce the waiting-time and loss through evaporation, as they can quite legally introduce much younger spirit into the mix.

Essentially, they are mixing spirits of various ages to create an approximation of their old age-stated lines. But without lowering their prices. In many cases, these new "brands" have launched at increased pricing levels.

The consumer is being duped into believing they're still drinking aged single-malt Scotch, when, in fact they're doing nothing of the sort. But they're still paying aged single-malt prices and more.

Shocking.

[polarbear]

2 years ago I was told by my local barman to buy all the Macallen 18 I could find as they'd just stopped producing aged statement whiskey. I thought he was talking crap. Regretting it now

[ayepatz]

2 years ago I was told by my local barman to buy all the Macallen 18 I could find as they'd just stopped producing aged statement whiskey. I thought he was talking crap. Regretting it now

You and me both, brother!

[polarbear]

According to the Scotch Whisky Association, there are around 20 million casks currently ageing in Scottish warehouses.

How much of this is destined to be used in NAS Scotch after the 3-year minimum maturing time, and how much will be set aside for longer term ageing is anyone's guess.

Given the amount of NAS Scotch currently flooding the market, and the fact that many of the top distilleries are now no longer offering age dated stock, it would appear that the industry is trying to force a change in how the consumer views whisky - only colour and taste should be considered, age being unimportant. If successful, they will no longer have to worry about stockpiling for the distant future and can significantly increase production (and therefore profit) of their new brands.

In 2012 Single Malt Scotch accounted for only 8% of total Scotch Whisky production, but generated 18% of the income.

The trade-off for that profit was always the waiting-time until the Scotch was mature. This waiting-time, and the resulting "angels' share" (that amount of spirit lost to evaporation over time), was reflected in the higher price point.

By law, the age statement on Single Malt Scotch must reflect the youngest spirit used in the mix. For example, if a distiller wished to tweak a 12-year old malt by adding a splash of the 10-year old spirit, the resulting whisky, by law, has to be named a 10-year old, even if most of the volume is 12 years old.

By removing the age statement from the bottle, distillers can reduce the waiting-time and loss through evaporation, as they can quite legally introduce much younger spirit into the mix.

Essentially, they are mixing spirits of various ages to create an approximation of their old age-stated lines. But without lowering their prices. In many cases, these new "brands" have launched at increased pricing levels.

The consumer is being duped into believing they're still drinking aged single-malt Scotch, when, in fact they're doing nothing of the sort. But they're still paying aged single-malt prices and more.

Shocking.

Taste is what will determine if this system of NAS works.

Short term it will probably keep money rolling in but if the NAS whiskey, that's priced like a 12 year old single malt, doesn't taste like a 12 year old single malt, people won't buy it again.

Also, if current market growth continues at the rate it currently is, NAS is not a long term solution unless the ratio of old whiskey to young whiskey is tweaked over time in an effort to change the original taste without people noticing. You can only dilute a 20 year old single malt so much before it starts to taste more like the barely aged ever clear your diluting it with.

With a boutique spirt boom on currently (not just whiskey but bourbon, gin, rum and vodka) it wouldn't be hard for consumers to move away from their favorite manufacturers when the whiskey they've drunk for years is no longer available and the replacement isn't as good but costs the same.

I'm not a huge whiskey guy, I tend to gravitate towards rum and gin more, so age statements have never really bothered me, but I do take exception to a manufacturer that establishes a price point for a product, dilutes it with a cheaper mixture but continues to sell it at a premium.

[Duxnutz]

Rampant in the Bourbon world. Dropping the statement like teeny-boppers at a One Direction concert.

[Notsocleaver]

Dropping age statements raises warning flags, but older isn't always better. Some Islay Scotch is good at a very young age. Kilchoman is about 5 years old and excellent. I would take their Machir Bay over Ardbeg 10 or Laphroaig 10.