Very informative, I really enjoy your channel. I'm just getting started on my whiskey journey and will keep the age limit at 12yo until my palate matures more.
Do you think whisky is a bit like commodities, it follows economic boom/bust cycles ? Do you know if any index that tracks the "average" single malt price over time ?
NAS = artificially aged whiskey. Technology has caught up to the point where they can force chemical reaction to occur with the wood in a short amount of time. NAS scotch should not cost as much as age statement whiskey imho.
Every whisky is casked, not just to be stored, but to be improved by maturation - so the age of every whisky (including grains and the blends subsequently made from them) matters to its development, as confirmed by the industry keeping age records on every cask it produces. If age matters to any whisky, it matters to them all, including those using younger casks, and there is no justification to withhold age from the paying customer as it is clearly relevant production information. Whisky without an age statement is NOT the same thing as whisky without an age. NAS is a type of label, NOT a type of whisky. NAS does not reflect any type of production process and any bottle can be made NAS by taking the label off. There are some good NAS-labeled products, but their quality doesn’t justify removing production information at the bottler any more than it does doing it at home by ripping off the label; none of these products owe, or CAN owe, their quality to their lack of an age statement. The essential message of NAS is that “age matters here (with age statements), but not there (with NAS), based SOLELY upon whether the people in marketing want, or don’t want, to use age as a selling point on any given bottle”, and it’s a concept which is patently ridiculous and should be boycotted for that reason. As an aside, the “scandal” over the Macallan 1824 series isn’t so much about dropping age statements on some bottles, but the ridiculous idea that “age doesn’t matter, but somehow colour does, but only for SOME whiskies and not others”. When you buy a Macallan 18, nobody cares, least of all at Macallan, what colour it is, and there’s no rebate over any “colour difference” between that 18 and a Ruby. I do wish that people who really know whisky would just denounce this stuff for the nonsense it is. Thanks very much for making this video.
Wow, good on you for telling the truth, by that I can imagine you are closely monitored by distillers due to you followers and then diplomacy usually follows and scrutiny mellows. I've always thought to be a wine economist would be a massively important global job, but you have highlighted that whisky market is just a volitile and probably more so because it has the long aging process.
I tried The Macallan Siena , not impressed. Reminded me quite a bit of Glenmorangies LaSanta , just poorer quality and twice the price. Sorry wont be touching any of the other non age statement blends..
And most of the single malt goes in to the blends right? Like 80/90% off the production? I'll guess the profits must be real high to put the rest out as a single malt. While the blend production is running. They make us believe maturation takes a lot of effort and caring. I think it's a big cherry on the pie! And now they try it with N.A.S fairy tales. High price without maturation. And we fell for it,hook line and sinker !!!
You where quite right. The single malt is about 19%. Page 16 (hit the download button) www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/news-publications/publications/documents/statisical-report-2013/#.VOQ4OfmG-30
In general I only steer towards NAS whisky that is heavily peated. Because smokey whisky is often more powerful younger (or you could just put the 5 year old on the bottle like Ardbeg) so I am less concerned about the age the spirit.
Not byuing NAS whiskies myself. You never know what you are gonna get. Like buying a pig in a bag. Well now typing this... I did buy a bottle of Ardbeg Uigeadail and most likely will buy another. BUT wasnt it actually Ardbeg who started it? Their whiskies are still of good quality and worth the price (besides maybe Kelpie at least?)
If a Single Malt blend is like 5 % 10 year old and this is the youngest component, it wouldn't be very representative to say "10 years old" on the lable wouldn't it?
Couldn't those new distilleries just sell some of their casks to companies making blended whiskys to get them through the gap from 3 years to 12 years?
Sorry I did not have time to see all of this video. But whisky matures a lot better when the wood is good, so age is not the only parameter for good whisky. Shortages of a type of whisky reflects in the price. We never see no age statement on single cask bottlings, probably because there is no brand other than the cask.
The SWS watches the every move of scotch distilleries. They'd be shut down if they tried anything. We're not talking about a communist country here where rules don't apply.
My guess would be that because more whisky is lost due to evaporation, it makes what is left in the barrel after X amount of time that much more limited and thus more exclusive, among other reasons I'm sure. Marketing power is definitely another reason e.g. Macallan.
Both of the above answers are correct, but you also have to add on excise duty. A 15yr old scotch is taxed more than a 10yr old scotch, a 10yr old is taxed more than a 5yr old.
Because there's exponentially less of it. Say your distillery makes a 12 years and an 18 years, now take one year of production. Most of it is sold for blends, then after 12 years you use half of it in your 12 year bottles along with some older casks. The next year you use some of it again, and again and so by the time it gets to 18 years old you only have 10% of that years production left over. Simple supply and demand.
Horst, i love the passion and way you talk about whiskey! keep those videos coming!
I would love to give your comment a "thumbs up", but unfortunately, you said "WhiskEy", with the "e".
Very informative, I really enjoy your channel. I'm just getting started on my whiskey journey and will keep the age limit at 12yo until my palate matures more.
"WhiskEy" is not the correct spelling for Scotch. :)
The last few weeks the shortage of Glenlivet is very noticeable here in the Netherlands.
Some awesome NAS Whiskies to be drank....:)
Would definitely try a smoky whisky from a herring cask.
Thank you for the great review and valuable information.
So do you guys think Glenmoranige Signet is a good nas? i'm about it buy it
Do you think whisky is a bit like commodities, it follows economic boom/bust cycles ? Do you know if any index that tracks the "average" single malt price over time ?
That would be nice.
NAS = artificially aged whiskey. Technology has caught up to the point where they can force chemical reaction to occur with the wood in a short amount of time. NAS scotch should not cost as much as age statement whiskey imho.
Every whisky is casked, not just to be stored, but to be improved by maturation - so the age of every whisky (including grains and the blends subsequently made from them) matters to its development, as confirmed by the industry keeping age records on every cask it produces. If age matters to any whisky, it matters to them all, including those using younger casks, and there is no justification to withhold age from the paying customer as it is clearly relevant production information. Whisky without an age statement is NOT the same thing as whisky without an age.
NAS is a type of label, NOT a type of whisky. NAS does not reflect any type of production process and any bottle can be made NAS by taking the label off. There are some good NAS-labeled products, but their quality doesn’t justify removing production information at the bottler any more than it does doing it at home by ripping off the label; none of these products owe, or CAN owe, their quality to their lack of an age statement.
The essential message of NAS is that “age matters here (with age statements), but not there (with NAS), based SOLELY upon whether the people in marketing want, or don’t want, to use age as a selling point on any given bottle”, and it’s a concept which is patently ridiculous and should be boycotted for that reason.
As an aside, the “scandal” over the Macallan 1824 series isn’t so much about dropping age statements on some bottles, but the ridiculous idea that “age doesn’t matter, but somehow colour does, but only for SOME whiskies and not others”. When you buy a Macallan 18, nobody cares, least of all at Macallan, what colour it is, and there’s no rebate over any “colour difference” between that 18 and a Ruby. I do wish that people who really know whisky would just denounce this stuff for the nonsense it is.
Thanks very much for making this video.
Malt454 You are welcome.
Wow, good on you for telling the truth, by that I can imagine you are closely monitored by distillers due to you followers and then diplomacy usually follows and scrutiny mellows. I've always thought to be a wine economist would be a massively important global job, but you have highlighted that whisky market is just a volitile and probably more so because it has the long aging process.
I tried The Macallan Siena , not impressed. Reminded me quite a bit of Glenmorangies LaSanta , just poorer quality and twice the price. Sorry wont be touching any of the other non age statement blends..
And most of the single malt goes in to the blends right? Like 80/90% off the production?
I'll guess the profits must be real high to put the rest out as a single malt. While the blend production is running.
They make us believe maturation takes a lot of effort and caring.
I think it's a big cherry on the pie!
And now they try it with N.A.S fairy tales. High price without maturation. And we fell for it,hook line and sinker !!!
You where quite right. The single malt is about 19%. Page 16 (hit the download button)
www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/news-publications/publications/documents/statisical-report-2013/#.VOQ4OfmG-30
In general I only steer towards NAS whisky that is heavily peated. Because smokey whisky is often more powerful younger (or you could just put the 5 year old on the bottle like Ardbeg) so I am less concerned about the age the spirit.
Not byuing NAS whiskies myself. You never know what you are gonna get. Like buying a pig in a bag. Well now typing this... I did buy a bottle of Ardbeg Uigeadail and most likely will buy another. BUT wasnt it actually Ardbeg who started it? Their whiskies are still of good quality and worth the price (besides maybe Kelpie at least?)
If a Single Malt blend is like 5 % 10 year old and this is the youngest component, it wouldn't be very representative to say "10 years old" on the lable wouldn't it?
A fascinating insight, thank you!
Couldn't those new distilleries just sell some of their casks to companies making blended whiskys to get them through the gap from 3 years to 12 years?
Sorry I did not have time to see all of this video. But whisky matures a lot better when the wood is good, so age is not the only parameter for good whisky.
Shortages of a type of whisky reflects in the price. We never see no age statement on single cask bottlings, probably because there is no brand other than the cask.
Very informative video. Vielen Dank.
don't forget canada we also get the glenlivet 12 year old. thank God!
mr. luening please show us (Amrut fusion ) indian single malt whisky
Did you see that Ben has now reviewed the Amrut family?
Yasser its haram to drink whisky lol
Koka Kola casks. Let's try it. :D
How do consumers *ACTUALLY* know that the age statement on bottles is accurate?
The SWS watches the every move of scotch distilleries. They'd be shut down if they tried anything. We're not talking about a communist country here where rules don't apply.
If it only costs a few extra cents per year of maturation per bottle, then why does older whisky rise exponentially in price?
My guess would be that because more whisky is lost due to evaporation, it makes what is left in the barrel after X amount of time that much more limited and thus more exclusive, among other reasons I'm sure. Marketing power is definitely another reason e.g. Macallan.
doctor594 My guess is that they just don't have the stock. As I said whisky takes pactience and foresight. Only very few CEOs have these abilities.
Both of the above answers are correct, but you also have to add on excise duty. A 15yr old scotch is taxed more than a 10yr old scotch, a 10yr old is taxed more than a 5yr old.
Because there's exponentially less of it. Say your distillery makes a 12 years and an 18 years, now take one year of production. Most of it is sold for blends, then after 12 years you use half of it in your 12 year bottles along with some older casks. The next year you use some of it again, and again and so by the time it gets to 18 years old you only have 10% of that years production left over. Simple supply and demand.
Sounds like a whisky cough to me,,maybe a glass of milk and a spoon full of sour cream will help.
Macallan while remarkable and collectable are capable of being rather cynical!
The Poles love the Japanese whiskey