What's new

What’s your take on Non Age Statement Scotch?

So like many here, i enjoy scotch quite a bit. Once i started really getting into it, i realized one of the most contentious topics in scotch has to be over age statements. Many brands are now releasing NAS single malts and it seems people are generally not pleased with it.

Personally, though i appreciate age statements, i’m not hung up on them. I think the blending of newer and older casks can create some really great scotches and if it tastes great who cares?

I like to pick up NAS bottles whenever i can because oftentimes they’re a great value and provide just as enjoyable an experience as their more expensive age statement cousins. What really opened my eyes was doing blind tastings.


Without knowing which is which, it really showed me how much things like age statements and brands influence our enjoyment of liquor. Not to say you can’t tell the difference between a 10 yr old and a 16 yr old scotch, but when stripped of labeling, i think you’d have a hard time telling which is which. Throw an NAS scotch from the same brand into the mix and things get interesting in not only discerning which is which, but also which you like best! Anyway i’d love to hear others thoughts on the subject so fire away!
 
Last year my son and I went to a Scotch tasting. The second part of the tasting dealt with the difference in one brand of Scotch: Glengoyne. We sampled 10, 12, 15, and 18-year-olds. We tasted the samples not knowing the age. Much to our surprise, the 18-year-old Scotch was not the favorite one despite its high cost.
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
I generally only get age statement scotch nowadays. There are a few NAS blends I'll buy, but they tend to be the more basic-general drinks rather than high-end stuff.
 
Last year my son and I went to a Scotch tasting. The second part of the tasting dealt with the difference in one brand of Scotch: Glengoyne. We sampled 10, 12, 15, and 18-year-olds. We tasted the samples not knowing the age. Much to our surprise, the 18-year-old Scotch was not the favorite one despite its high cost.

It’s funny how perception often taints the experience. Many times the older scotches are better since the years impart more of the cask and generally smooth out the alcohol, but i think often it gets to a point where you’re not actually improving it but detracting by having it mature too much. That’s basically my argument for NAS scotches. If they blend up different ages to create a scotch with the best charastics of both the mature and younger barrels, you can really get a good whiskey for a great price. Though i do with @Doc4 that the NAS stuff is often the lowest end offering by design. Which is also why i think there may be too much attachment to age statements. If you can blend a top notch scotch from old and new casks (which i’m sure they can) why not do it? I think the answer is that people wouldn’t buy it because of the lack of age statement. It’s like a catch 22. That’s why i like to try the NAS bottlings. You can hit on some that really punch above their price-point. A recent example to me is the Oban Little Bay.
 
I am not familiar with NAS Scotch. I guess I have fallen behind on reading whisky journalism.

I have said the following before, but have never seen it quite spelled out in any text, although no one has ever corrected me: I highly suspect that longer aged whiskies most often involve barrels selected as the better barrels. That is, it is not just six years of aging that distinguishes, say, a 12 year-old Highland Park from an 18 year-old Highland Park. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot more 18 year-old whisky around. Aging is not inexpensive, but I do not see anyway six more years in the barrel could account for the price or the quality difference between 12 and 18 year-old whisky.

I really do not know how this bears on NAS whisky. To me, Scotland, like Cognac, France, has really gotten control of a tight relationship between price and quality, in that for the most part one does not find really great whisky for cheap. I do not think the same is true to the same extent as to bourbon and rye. There are still big bargains out there, and age seems to have less to do with quality when it comes to bourbon and rye. My favorite rye these days is probably Peerless. Not inexpensive, that is for sure. But the usual bottling is only two years old, and the special bottlings are only three. If age is crucial, how can that possibly be?
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
If you can blend a top notch scotch from old and new casks (which i’m sure they can) why not do it?

My take is that there's also more opportunity to cut corners on the NAS bottling, and while they *could* use the opportunity to blend a stunner regardless of age, the temptation and likely course is to cut corners instead.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
The numbers written on the bottle are as irrelevant to me as the packaging on soaps or my friends' hairstyles. It's what's inside that matters.
 
My take is that there's also more opportunity to cut corners on the NAS bottling, and while they *could* use the opportunity to blend a stunner regardless of age, the temptation and likely course is to cut corners instead.

I agree with that. And, I bet there can be variation from batch to batch, perhaps based on how generous the blender is feeling.

And I have not idea of why, but vatted malts (or whatever term the Scotch control board has currently settled on--blended malt, I suppose) have not impressed me. For instance, as far as I know, Johnny Walker Green at least used to be a blended malt made of 15 year old Cragganmore, Caol Isla, Talisker, and Linkwood, although now the description is more vague than it used to be, and I guess JW is saying the blend it dominated by those components or some such wish-washy test. I am very familiar with younger versions of the first three, and I really like each of them, and have no reason to think I would not like the Linkwood. But I do not like the supposed blend of the 15 year olds as much as the straight up versions of the 10 and 12 year old versions of the components.

My senses is in most things, that forcing a manufacturer to state exact sources and exact ages, tends to result in a better product. As soon as the word "blend" enters the picture, and the description of the contents becomes less precise, slackness that does not help quality tends to ensue. So, sure, in theory a blend of nondisclosed components could be better, but rarely is!
 
I agree with that. And, I bet there can be variation from batch to batch, perhaps based on how generous the blender is feeling.

And I have not idea of why, but vatted malts (or whatever term the Scotch control board has currently settled on--blended malt, I suppose) have not impressed me. For instance, as far as I know, Johnny Walker Green at least used to be a blended malt made of 15 year old Cragganmore, Caol Isla, Talisker, and Linkwood, although now the description is more vague than it used to be, and I guess JW is saying the blend it dominated by those components or some such wish-washy test. I am very familiar with younger versions of the first three, and I really like each of them, and have no reason to think I would not like the Linkwood. But I do not like the supposed blend of the 15 year olds as much as the straight up versions of the 10 and 12 year old versions of the components.

My senses is in most things, that forcing a manufacturer to state exact sources and exact ages, tends to result in a better product. As soon as the word "blend" enters the picture, and the description of the contents becomes less precise, slackness that does not help quality tends to ensue. So, sure, in theory a blend of nondisclosed components could be better, but rarely is!

That was a very good rebuttal and i have to say, i agree with you. I guess i tend to think of scotch in idealistic terms but you’re right; the reality is that they would probably try to cut corners once NAS blends started to gain traction. For now, i’ll simply enjoy the (what i consider) bargains but i think you’ve effectively changed my thinking on the matter.
 
For now, i’ll simply enjoy the (what i consider) bargains but i think you’ve effectively changed my thinking on the matter.

You will notice if quality goes south! I suppose one theory is to buy while they are trying to gain traction! (Great phrase, "gain traction," BTW.
 
This is one of the reasons I support Compass Box and Bruichladdich, and their struggles with the SWA about label clarity. I see no reason to prevent a blender or distillery from putting as much information as possible on their product.
 
SWA seemed to argue that what it was requiring--that only the age of the youngest component of a blender--could be referred to in any way, was required by applicable EU regulations, and it had no ability to change those EU requirements. But then Bruichladdich, which is not an SWA member, came out with lots of details about certain of its whiskies, right? What has come of all of this?

I do not think the problem is what Compass Box proposed to do, which is to provide full details on everything in its blend, but that a blender would provide misleading incomplete information, I suppose information that could confuse the consumer into thinking the blend had more older whisky than it did.
 
Interesting. I need to look up this dispute since i hadn’t heard anything about it. I do know this: Peat Monster lives up to its name.
 

JCarr

More Deep Thoughts than Jack Handy
Big fan of Glenfarclas 12 Year. Mortlach Cask Strength is good stuff, but pricey. Cragganmore is nice too.
 
Big fan of Glenfarclas 12 Year. Mortlach Cask Strength is good stuff, but pricey. Cragganmore is nice too.

Glenfarclas is on my short list this winter. Hard to find in my area but i know a few stores that carry it. That’ll most likely be my next dedicated scotch buy.
 
I don't really care about age statements but I like the stuff north of 43% that's non chill-filtered. Lots of character and mouthfeel.

Yeah i do like it when a scotch clouds up with some water or a cube. I’m not really sure if chill filtering alters the taste but i personally like the change in appearance in un-chill filtered scotches. Ouzo is the same way. And i agree that i enjoy higher percentage scotches up to a point. Once you start cresting 50% though i find it starts to wash out the flavor.
 

TexLaw

Fussy Evil Genius
Good is good, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a lot more concerned with what's in the bottle than what's printed on it.

As mentioned above, age and quality do not necessarily correlate. Unless I'm looking at a single barrel, the age statement is little more than a brand, and those are being replaced with new brands. Granted, some of those replacement brands don't fly as far as the old (for example, Laphroaig Lore that replaced the 18), but there's always something to move on to.
 

JCarr

More Deep Thoughts than Jack Handy
Proper 12 Irish Whiskey is worth the couple of extra dollars for sure. My new go-to Irish Whiskey. I used to only buy Tullamore Dew, but Proper 12 even beats Tullamore.
 
Top Bottom