What’s your take on Non Age Statement Scotch?

[Doc4]

- many of the whisky experts interviewed preferred 10-12 years over older one exactly due to influence of the barrel wood. Very YMMV.
- people are willing to pay big $$$ for really aged scotch - its a status thing.

IMHO the really old scotch isn't "better" ... it's more expensive. The longer time to age, the larger angel's share, the perceived status and scarcity and the resulting supply/demand result ... I can understand the high price.

And sometimes it can be "better" than younger scotch ... but mainly it's "different".

Sorry, I don't really have an opinion on NAS scotch just yet. I've bought enough cheap scotch to know that I prefer cheap bourbon. But watching that doc has me itching to spurge on a better bottle.

I'll suggest you form your own opinion on the NAS stuff ... but certainly a "better" bottle of scotch (age statement or otherwise) is a lot more enjoyable than the cheap stuff.

I have probably written this previously, but it seems to me that the Scotch industry, like Cognac producers, has a tight rein on the quality of goods and what they sell for. As a result, there is no really good cheap Scotch or Cognac.

I am not familiar with the cognac world, but I suspect that it is, like the scotch world, very dialed in on what a quality spirit is, and what a quality spirit is worth. And they tend not to need to win potential consumers over ... they are already in high demand so no need to offer "bargains" to make people think about them.

I remember back decades ago when wines from Chile started to hit the market, and the "selling point" to get people to try them was "this wine is as good as a wine costing two or three times as much from France". As the decades have passed, the gap has narrowed as consumers came to equate Chilean wine with "quality".

And the really expensive products generally deliver, not that some are not more wonderful than others.

Sort of.

Far more likely that a bottle of scotch will be overpriced than it being underpriced. And the really really expensive stuff ... well ... so much of the price is for exclusivity and perceived quality (see discussion above about very old scotch.)

I am not sure how they manage that, but I think it comes from tight regulation and oversight. A strong guild, if you will.

I don't see a conspiracy or secret cabal controlling prices. More a case of each individual producer (some of the larger ones owning numerous distilleries, by the way) being really dialed in on what "quality" they have and making sure they wring every penny out of it in terms of pricing.

I definitely think the potential bang for the buck is better with less expensive bourbon over less expensive Scotch. Not that many years ago the difference was even larger.

Kind of like the Chilean wine thing. Although I don't think the world of Chilean wine has its own "Pappy Van Winkle".

 

[TexLaw]

As a result, there is no really good cheap Scotch or Cognac.

You chose two tough examples, there. Both are restricted to very small regions (Kentucky is larger than Scotland and Cognac, combined), while bourbon can be made anywhere in the USA. Both are made with relatively expensive ingredients (barley is significantly more expensive than corn or wheat, and I believe Trebbiano grapes are even more expensive, still). Scotch must be aged for at least three years, as opposed to bourbon's two years. Cognac need only be aged two years, but it must be aged in particular barrels that are a good deal more expensive than American white oak.

In any case, I'm no expert at all when it comes to Cognac, but I quite like Courvoisier VS, and I especially like that I can get it for around $25. For Scotch, Shieldaig single malts are quite good for running around $20. I don't know if those examples qualify as "really good" or "cheap" in your book, but they have to be getting close.

 

[The Knize]

Although I don't think the world of Chilean wine has its own "Pappy Van Winkle".

Some Vinedo Chadwick seems to go for north of $300 a bottle, but that is not Pappy's range and its seems pretty hard to pay much more than $150 for a bottle of Chilean wine.

I really have no idea how the Chilean wine industry is structured. But my take is--and memory fades--is that x number of decades ago all of a sudden there was lots of Chilean wine in the American market (the Concho y Toro label stands out in my mind) where there had been little or none before and it was marketed as high bang for the buck and it truly was. I assume there must have been some organized effort by Chilean producers behind that. One item of interest was the use of Malbec, which to my knowledge had not been thought of as a grape producing decent wines. Then came a period when, too me, Chilean quality took a dive, at least at the cheaper end. But now I would say that Chilean wine is good quality and generally priced fairly, and has that reputation. So I think we are on the same page on the Chilean wine thing, across the board.

Far more likely that a bottle of scotch will be overpriced than it being underpriced. And the really really expensive stuff ... well ... so much of the price is for exclusivity and perceived quality (see discussion above about very old scotch.)

That is fair. And perhaps the really expensive stuff ought to be treated as a separate category. I think what I am really trying to say that is that more expensive Scotch is generally going to be pretty good. I suppose that does not mean it is not overpriced. But to me it is still going to be better than less expensive Scotch. Again, I think you and I agree, Doc4, that the Scots know the quality of what they are selling, and generally charge for it, however they get there. There are probably exceptions. I do not know Shieldaig single malts, so I cannot really comment. I like Monkey Shoulder, a vatted or pure malt, or whatever they are calling single malt blends these days. I consider it good quality, and better than some and perhaps many single malts, if that helps. I cannot think of any 18 year old single malts that it is better than, although I sure have not had a universe of 18 year olds. I am not sure what it costs.

I don't see a conspiracy or secret cabal controlling prices. More a case of each individual producer (some of the larger ones owning numerous distilleries, by the way) being really dialed in on what "quality" they have and making sure they wring every penny out of it in terms of pricing.

Not a secret cabal, but pretty close coordination among producers with the help of government supervision. But right now I do not have evidence to cite. I would say we see greater variation in price to quality in other alcoholic beverages, including bourbon. I think most producers of anything collectively would benefit from keeping quality and price high, but they usually fail in doing so. And Europe is loaded with government supervision intended to keep at least geographic designations very particularized. Wine labeled as from a particular region will be required to be made from specific grapes grown in specific places, perhaps with specific limits on production per acre, with specific requirements for time in the barrel, types of barrels, etc. All of this designed to create a consistent, reliable product that consumers can identify and are willing to pay for. (Sure, there is some consumer protection aspect of this, too.) As I recall, Cognac is tightly regulated as to grape type (Ugni Blanc (which is Trebbiano, well done texlaw!!), but also Folle Blanche and Colombard, where grown (Champagne, as I recall), barrel-age length for various designations (VS, VSOP, XO--two year old cognac is not going to command a high price), copper pot still, type of wood for barrel (French Limousin oak, or similar French oak, right again, texlaw!). However they manage to do it, I personally have never had an XO cognac I was not impressed with. (I will undercut my overall argument a lot to say that the Costco Kirkland XO Cognac is very well-priced, and to my palate pretty good, but not to the quality of other XO cognacs.)

I cannot cite specifics sitting here, but I would not be surprised to find actual limits on the amount of a particularly labelled beverage allowed to be released each year. I do not know about cognac. I am guessing not re Scotch.

I realize bourbon comes under some specific regulations.

$25 is a really good price for Courvoisier VS. And, I guess, to confuse my argument even more, I consider the real less expensive Cognacs a good value, compared to less expensive Scotches. I know I have written before that I once read a piece by a fairly well-respected supposed expert in such matters who said that a bottle of cognac snuck into a blind Scotch tasting would win every time. Seems credible to me. I am not sure there is any really bad cognac on the market. I have drunk some pretty bad Scotch. I will say that the VSOP Courvoisier is noticeably better. I assume an XO version exists, but I have not had it. I bet it is better still, although the bang for the buck may not be there.

Have I thoroughly undercut whatever it is I am talking about yet?

 

[The Knize]

<As a result, there is no really good cheap Scotch or Cognac.>

As I think about it, I should revise what I have said about real French Cognac to "the worst I ever had was good." That is not a statement that is true about many things, at least for me!

 

[Doc4]

x number of decades ago all of a sudden there was lots of Chilean wine ... marketed as high bang for the buck and it truly was. I assume there must have been some organized effort by Chilean producers behind that.

No doubt some sort of wine marketing board responsible for promoting exports that chose to focus on that "bang for buck" theme. Probably working with most (at least) of the producers to get them to buy into that theme and price their products accordingly.

One item of interest was the use of Malbec, which to my knowledge had not been thought of as a grape producing decent wines.

It's one of the five (actually six) grapes allowed to go into the red Bordeaux blend. Of course Cab Sauv gets all the glory and fame. But still ...

And perhaps the really expensive stuff ought to be treated as a separate category.

You can probably find a bunch of different categories.

1. cheap blends (up to and including Johnnie Walker Red)
2. better blends (Johnnie Walker Black, Chivas Regal, &c)
3. entry-level single malts (Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, usually "12"s)
4. deluxe blends (Johnnie Walker funky-colour)
5. next-level single malts (eg Lagavulin 16)
6. 18--21 year single malts
7. over-21 single malts
8. freakishly expensive single malts
9. super-freakishly expensive single malts, no doubt really really old
10. Nobody can afford it but it exists.

Oversimplified, no doubt.

Scots know the quality of what they are selling, and generally charge for it, however they get there. There are probably exceptions.

There are better "values" out there. Relatively speaking. Sometimes "this $60 malt" is more enjoyable than "that $70 malt" and so forth. Some distillers include more "brand prestige" in their pricing than others do ... probably because they can. If their malt quality drifts downward, they'll keep their prices the same as long as they can; if they can raise their malt quality a bit, up goes prices too.

I would say we see greater variation in price to quality in other alcoholic beverages, including bourbon.

I guess it depends on what sort of "variation" we are talking about. Does Springbank 15 get sold as if it were Teacher's? Or Teacher's sold as if it were Springbank? No, nothing so dramatic. But is a $50 bottle of Springbank a lot better than a $50 bottle of Macallan? You bet.

I suspect that given the smaller number of producers and smaller geographic area it's easier for each producer to keep tabs on trends in the industry and be able to avoid being the obvious "odd man out" in terms of pricing.

I will undercut my overall argument a lot to say that the Costco Kirkland XO Cognac is very well-priced, and to my palate pretty good, but not to the quality of other XO cognacs.

I got a bottle of Kirkland 20-year-old Speyside single malt. (It's single malt, they just won't tell us from whom.) The "price was right" for me to take a flier on a bottle. It's not bad ... but ... not knocking my socks off the way I would expect a (higher priced) 20-year-old scotch to do.

$25 is a really good price for ...

I have a hard time with specific prices. Not only because I am always thinking in terms of Canadian dollars, but also because the taxes on the booze vary so much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so what for you might be a $25 bottle is sold here for $50. Or some other price. Very hard to say.

And the "local" tax rate can vary from product to product. Domestic booze may get preferential rates, or not, and certain "luxury" categories may get higher rates (because the rich b@$t@rd$ who drink it can afford that ... and now nobody else can.)

Have I thoroughly undercut whatever it is I am talking about yet?

Maybe ... but you wrote so much that nobody will notice.

 

[The Knize]

<but you wrote so much that nobody will notice.>

In that case, somebody stop me! And as "they" say, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

You, Doc4, have really put some thought into this. I should just bow to you!

<It's one of the five (actually six) grapes allowed to go into the red Bordeaux blend. Of course Cab Sauv gets all the glory and fame. But still ...>

Cab Sauv and Merlot, and, I suppose, to a lesser extent Cab Franc. But I do not think anyone any place other than Chile and Argentina has been successful in making wonderful wine from predominately Malbec grapes. What they are doing in SA with Malbec is wonderful. I think Malbec is considered a blending grape in Bordeaux. I am not sure what that means given almost all if not all Bordeaux's are blends. (Actually maybe it was Argentina where the first Malbec I had ever seen showed up. I am probably conflating Chile and Argentina, which is bad of me.

Sounds like your experience with the Kirkland Speyside and mine with the Kirkland XO is similar.

I need to try some Springbank. Although looks more like $70 than $50, for it and the Macallan.

 

[Doc4]

You, Doc4, have really put some thought into this.

Thinkin' ... or drinkin'.

I think Malbec is considered a blending grape in Bordeaux. I am not sure what that means given almost all if not all Bordeaux's are blends.

Generally, the "backbone grape" in Bordeaux is either Cab Sau or Merlot, and the other grapes tend to play a supporting role. (No doubt an exception or three out there as well.) But of course the individual grapes never got the fame, just the "bordeaux" name and/or "claret" and/or the individual Chateaux.

Even with single-variety wines (such as red and white Burgundy ... Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, that is ...) the European tradition is to focus on the region and chateaux rather than the grape varietal. In the New World, there tends to be a lot more focus on the specific grape(s) in the wine.

 

[The Knize]

I need to try some Springbank. Although looks more like $70 than $50, for it and the Macallan.

A slight correction, perhaps. At my local liquor store, which in my Maryland County is owned and operated by the county, and has sort of moderate prices in relation to the prices in other stores in the area, the least expensive Macallan, 10 yo Fine Oak, is a tad north of $50. Springbank, only one expression available, 10 yo Campbeltown, is just shy of $100, about the price of an 18 yo Glenfiddich. 18 yo Glenlivet is a bit more than that. Bowmore 18 a bit more than that.

Looks like Courvoisier VS is about $28. VSOP is on sale for about $33. XO "Imperial" is about $147. Hennessey seems to be a significant step up in price. And Remy and Martell a smaller step up from there. I would have expected the prices, of the first three anyway, to be closer.

I have been drinking cognacs of various levels from a smaller house, Park or Cognac Park, from the county store. These seem pretty good to me, but the pricing is a little odd in that at the VS, VSOP end they seem rather more expensive that the others I have named, but the XO is less expensive than the others. I have been drinking these in Philly Fish House Punches, which may be overkill, but I really like that drink and it tastes better made with higher end stuff.

There is a Salignac brand cognac for $19. I assume this is authentically French juice. So maybe I am wrong that there is no cheap, bad cognac.

So, nevermind!

 

[The Knize]

Sorry about the thread drift, by the way, OP!

Thinkin' ... or drinkin'.

You and I seem to have a consuming interest in these things.

Re the components of Bordeaux, if Wikipedia can be trusted, the plot thickens.

First, it turns out, in July of last year, four more grapes began to be allowed to be used in Bordeaux--Marselan, Touriga Nacional, Castets, and Arinarnoa. I did not realize it, but apparently depending on where on is in Bordeaux the blend is most likely to be either 70% cab sauv, 15% merlot, and 15% cab franc, or 70% merlot, 15% cab sauv, and 15% cab franc.

Less than 1% of all Bordeaux acreage is in the "ancillary varietals" all combined, so the percentage in the average Bordeaux blend must be tiny. One wonders if they add anything significant to the wine at all. One might ask, why bother? I do not know the answer to that question.

the European tradition is to focus on the region and chateaux rather than the grape varietal.

That is true. Not many European wines, especially traditionally, are single varietals, or at least they are not referred to by the grape name. But the regulations that provide for whether a wine may carry the geographic appellation on its label often/always set out that only specific grapes may be used in the wine. Macons, for instance, have to be 100% chardonnay. Chablis, too. I do not know the requirements for red burgundies. Hermitage AOC - reds of Syrah and up to 15% Marsanne and Roussanne.

Fun stuff. Again I apologize for the thread drift.

 

[The Knize]

You all should pay no attention to me at all. At the wine shop today they had a 100% Malbec from Bordeaux that had gotten a very nice review from someone. I assume this wine did not exist until the South Americans hit so big with Malbec, so it is more a matter of keeping up with the times. But still! They had a 100 % cab franc Bordeaux, too.

 

[MntnMan62]

I don't go much by the age either. I just drink what I like. For instance, lots of guys on my block love Johnny Walker Blue. It's ok. Extremely smooth. But in my opinion that silky smoothness equates to it lacking any kind of character at all. And given it's hefty price of around $200 a bottle, I'm not buying. I much prefer Lagavulin 16. I prefer the 16 over their Cask Strength and their limited edition reserves. I find them to be a bit sharp and those with higher alcohol content reduces my enjoyment of it. I've tried the Lagavulin 8. It has many of the same characteristics of the 16 but it is lighter in color, softer in the peat and softer in the smoke. It's a nice drink but I prefer the 16. I've tried expensive Macallans and while it's a nice smooth drink, I find I like the peat and smoke. The way I see it I've settled on what I like and see no reason to go searching for something better. I've done that, tried all sorts of different scotches over the years and every time I come back to Lagavulin it puts a smile on my face. The others don't do that.

 

[TexLaw]

I assume this wine did not exist until the South Americans hit so big with Malbec, so it is more a matter of keeping up with the times.

I dare say that it's also evolution of the craft.

But in my opinion that silky smoothness equates to it lacking any kind of character at all.

You just summed up my opinion of Johnny Walker Blue. I admit that I've only had it a few times, but that was the lion's share of my opinion every time. It's mighty good stuff, and it's very smooth, but it's not at all interesting, and there are far better choices at half the price (or less).

That said, I am known to spend $200+ on a bottle of Scotch from time to time. It has to be something that really strikes me, though, as it's not something I make a habit of.

 

[The Knize]

I dare say that it's also evolution of the craft.

Definitely! I meant it was a matter of me keeping up with the times, not the producers!

I feel the same way you guys do about Johnnie Walker Blue. Actually it is the way I used to feel about Chivas Regal--remember the days when Chivas Regal was considered something up scale and luxurious? --Scotch designed for people who do not like Scotch.

I find them to be a bit sharp and those with higher alcohol content reduces my enjoyment of it.

The whole barrel strength/high proof thing is a whole other topic. I find I do not like low proof whiskies, but I do not enjoy a super high proof either.

 

[MntnMan62]

Definitely! I meant it was a matter of me keeping up with the times, not the producers!

I feel the same way you guys do about Johnnie Walker Blue. Actually it is the way I used to feel about Chivas Regal--remember the days when Chivas Regal was considered something up scale and luxurious? --Scotch designed for people who do not like Scotch.


The whole barrel strength/high proof thing is a whole other topic. I find I do not like low proof whiskies, but I do not enjoy a super high proof either.

Is 86 proof low proof for you? I find it to be ideal since that is what Lagavulin 16 is.

 

[Doc4]

At the wine shop today they had a 100% Malbec from Bordeaux that had gotten a very nice review from someone.

No doubt a new trend, trying to keep up with the Joneses. Meh.

Far more common is the new world "meritage" ... where they blend Bordeaux grapes together but can't legally call it "Bordeaux".

That said, I am known to spend $200+ on a bottle of Scotch from time to time. It has to be something that really strikes me, though, as it's not something I make a habit of

I haven't ... but I could if the right " grail bottle" came along.

The way I see it I've settled on what I like and see no reason to go searching for something better. I've done that, tried all sorts of different scotches over the years and every time I come back to Lagavulin it puts a smile on my face. The others don't do that.

Well, I can't tell you that you are wrong.

I'm half that and half still enjoying the exploration journey. I always revisit the favourites but make sure not to feel like I'm stuck in a rut.

Scotch designed for people who do not like Scotch

Boom, son!

Oh snap!



... we'll be kind and call it a "gateway scotch" rather than "dumbed down" ...

 

[The Knize]

Far more common is the new world "meritage" ... where they blend Bordeaux grapes together but can't legally call it "Bordeaux".

I think I remember first seeing "meritage" associated with California blends as a step away from what you so rightly pointed out was the tradition there of making single varietal wines. It strikes me that after all of these years, what I do not know about winemaking would fill volumes!

... we'll be kind and call it a "gateway scotch" rather than "dumbed down" ...

Well said. But amazing that such gateway Scotches are priced so high and promoted as a luxury item.

Is 86 proof low proof for you? I find it to be ideal since that is what Lagavulin 16 is.

Well, we have pretty much established that I do not know what I am talking about and probably do not know what I like either, but I sure do like Lagavulin. I suppose I may be thinking more of bourbon and rye, which I tend to drink more in missed drinks than straight anyway, albeit it pretty strong drinks like old-fashioneds and Manhattans. I tend to think of rye and bourbon in the 90s or around 100 proof as about right. Most bottled in bonds seem to me better than the regular bottlings and I tend to think the higher proof is helpful. Peerless seems to be around 102 or so. Much above that seems a lot and hot.

I like overproof/naval strength gins, because they generally seem very flavorful and I like the mouth feel. But I really should not drink them. That extra alcohol can make one more drunk than one thinks.

 

[Doc4]

It strikes me that after all of these years, what I do not know about winemaking would fill volumes!

If you don't kASK, you won't kNOW.

(I know juuuuuust enough to be king in the land of the blind, and to follow along pretty well when an actual wine expert is talking ... and dumbing it down.)

amazing that such gateway Scotches are priced so high and promoted as a luxury

Trust fund kids need a way into the wonderful world of scotch too, you know. Kind of like making a high-end sports car with an automatic transmission.

 

[The Knize]

to follow along pretty well when an actual wine expert is talking ... and dumbing it down

Good quip re kASK! I think I know about as much as you say, but I could be wrong. I actually think I have forgotten a lot of what I did know, and I have probably forgotten more than I know now. For instance, I just now could not remember the difference between ruby and tawny port, and when I look it up, and I not sure I have what I am trying to think of correct at all. And what is the role of the blending grapes we were talking about in Bordeaux? Why use them at all, if they are inferior to the truly noble grapes like merlot and cab sauv? Why did California start off at least with single varietals? I must have know all of that at one time. On the other hand, I am sure there is plenty written about wine that is not true, too.

Kind of like making a high-end sports car with an automatic transmission.

Don't they all have automatic transmissions these days? I suppose the new Corvette does not qualify as high-end because not expensive! I suppose Lambos and McLarens are still sticks. I guess I do not follow that market closely enough!

 

[Avi]

Thinkin' ... or drinkin'.



Generally, the "backbone grape" in Bordeaux is either Cab Sau or Merlot, and the other grapes tend to play a supporting role. (No doubt an exception or three out there as well.) But of course the individual grapes never got the fame, just the "bordeaux" name and/or "claret" and/or the individual Chateaux.

Even with single-variety wines (such as red and white Burgundy ... Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, that is ...) the European tradition is to focus on the region and chateaux rather than the grape varietal. In the New World, there tends to be a lot more focus on the specific grape(s) in the wine.

btw if you are in nyc / north / south jersey / Delaware regions ... check out Moore brothers. Some friends who are really into high end wines introduced me to that store. My favorite thing about them is they are more about quality than high end, so you can walk things down to say 12-15 dollars a bottle ( which can be a bit of a crapshoot before I discovered them) and get absolutely superb quality wines. They temperature control ship / store and are just really aspergers OCD about wine without being snobby. From stags leap to two buck chuck, if it’s good let’s drink it


Regards
avi

 

[Avi]

Don't they all have automatic transmissions these days? I suppose the new Corvette does not qualify as high-end because not expensive! I suppose Lambos and McLarens are still sticks. I guess I do not follow that market closely enough!

I think it’s all dual clutch paddle shifters I think but no classic clutch and it shifts for you if you are being stupid