No Age Statement (NAS) Issues - Part Two [Age Statement Redaction]
About a month ago I added to the myriad of articles and blog entries about the "evils" no 'No Age Statement' (or NAS) whiskies (see Part One, here), and promised that I'd write Part Two, on 'age statement' or 'vintage redaction' the next week...well, I got distracted, and things have died down a bit, although there continues to be sporadic discussion on Curt's article over at All Things Whisky.
The introduction of NAS expressions that are: a) being added to product lines, or b) replacing existing products (as the Macallan 1824 Colour Series has replaced the Fine Oak and Sherried line-ups, for example), or c) being offered to consumers for prices that far exceed existing age-stated expressions (Talisker Storm vs. Talisker 10 year-old), aside, it is the concept of "age statement" and/or "vintage" "redaction" - which I define as when a distillery drops the age statement from an existing expression entirely and then expects you to pay the same amount for a bottle of unknown quality / provenance - that really, really bothers me.
I'd been struggling with how to put this idea to "paper", so to speak, when Sku announced that Jim Beam was replacing the existing Jim Beam Black, which carried an eight year-old statement, with a NAS version. It'll still be called Jim Beam Black, but they're no longer going to tell the consumer how old the whisky in the bottle is, which is actually kind of funny, since until now, Jim Beam Black produced for sale in the U.S. has been marketed as "double aged" - if a straight bourbon is aged less than four years, the distiller is required to tell you how old it is, more than four years and they don't have to tell you anything - so with an eight year-old age statement, "Double Aged" simply means that it's been aged twice as long as was required for them to not have to put an age statement on it. Confused yet? Just wait, because Jim Beam Black produced for export (to Canada, Europe, and placed beyond) currently carries a six year-old age statement, and is marketed as "Triple Aged", which in marketing-speak means that it's been aged three times longer than would be required for the distiller to market it as "straight bourbon". So let me get this straight, "Double Aged" means eight years old, and "Triple Aged" means six years old? Now I'm a bit confused... At least we can take solace in the fact that a NAS Jim Beam Black has to be at least four years old, otherwise they'd be legally obligated to put an age statement on it...and Jim Beam isn't the only bourbon distiller to be playing games with their age statements, as Sku has so kindly reported here, and here.
So, where am I going with this? Well, Jim Beam, Macallan, and the other companies that Sku identifies aren't the only distillers that have been dropping or otherwise fiddling with age statements: Diageo did it with the Johnnie Walker line-up, dropping the 15 year-old Green Label entirely, then removing the 18 year-old age statement from the Gold Label - which became the 'Gold Label Reserve' - and then introducing a new 18 year-old Platinum Label; and The Glenlivet recently introduced a new line-up of NAS cask strength whiskies as part of its Nadurra line-up, while at the same time reducing the original Nadurra 16 year-old from cask strength to 48% ABV.
Which brings me to my final example: a few years ago I picked up a
bottle of Dun Bheagan Islay (Vintage 2002/2010), which you can see in the photo on the right. A quick Google search nets you an Auto-Complete entry for 'Dun Bheagan Islay 8 years old', which returns reviews of the whisky in question from Whisky Magazine (by both the late Michael Jackson, and Dave Broom, no less), as well as a number of other hits which clearly identify the Dun Bheagan Islay as an eight year-old whisky...and incidentally, the Ian Macleod website continues to market the Dun Bheagan Islay as an eight year-old whisky; and it was an eight year-old whisky for a long time - a 2003/2011 vintage replaced the 2002/2010 bottling, which was in turn replaced by a 2005/2013 bottling...and then suddenly the LCBO was carrying a 2008 vintage. Was I reading that correctly? How, in 2014, could a whisky distilled in 2008 be eight years old? The simple answer is that it can't possibly be an eight year-old whisky, and a close inspection on the label showed that it isn't...it is, in fact, a 2008/2013 vintage (see photo below), which makes it five years-old, not eight years-old, yet being sold for the exact same price as the earlier, older vintages that the LCBO had carried previously.
So, what's going on here? I understand that, as an independent bottler, Ian Macleod may not be able source the exact same whiskies for each vintage, hence the fact that the Dun Bheagan Islay doesn't actually state what distillery it is from (a 'Bastard' malt, if you will), so while scuttlebut says that the Islay bottling is a young Lagavulin, it's possible that Diageo has turned off the taps on selling barrels to independents, something that Oliver Klimek speculated about back in 2012. And if this is the case, then in a way, it's out of their control, but this isn't the case with Jim Beam, or Macallan, or any of the other distilleries that had decided to drop age statements (or reduce the alcohol by volume of certain expressions in order to stretch stocks).
Of course, one can't complain too much about transparency with the Dun Bheagan Islay, unlike in the case of Jim Beam Black or the Macallan 1824 series, as the distillation date and bottling dates are printed on the bottle and bottle sleeve, even though all the information available online still reports the whisky as being an eight year-old (and the LCBO website is using a photo of the 2005/2013 bottling as part of the product description, which leads you to believe you're buying an eight year-old whisky, not a five year-old whisky), but in a way, it is about transparency: can Jim Beam ensure that a new NAS Black has the same flavour profile as the existing eight year-old (or six year-old), or is this all about consistency and standardization of product? If they're going to eliminate the age statement to make the "Double Aged" and "Triple Aged" expressions the same thing and get rid of this marketing BS, then maybe it's a change for the better, but if it's just a way to make what were eight year-old and six year-old whiskies into something that could be as young as four-years old (which is what Jim Beam White is), then why bother having a 'Black' and a 'White' expression at all?
OK, with all that said and done, here's my review of the Dun Bheagan Islay, 2002/2010 (eight years old), Non-Chill Filtered, Cask Numbers 701912 / 701926 (5400 bottles). In truth, I'm not entirely sure why I picked this bottle up, but I did...and then it spent a year or so in storage until I opened it - to replace the bottle of Talisker 10 year-old that I'd finished.
Nose: peat...lots of it, and smoke. Then some alcohol (a bit biting), but it mellows a bit and gives way to campfire smoke and smoked bacon.
Taste: thick, oily, mouth-coating, and then bacon, bacon, more bacon, and sourdough soaked in bacon grease.
Finish: quite hot, and a bit harsh...lingering, then more bacon...
Balance: not as balanced as I'd like, as the nose and palate are a bit one dimensional (as much as I like bacon, it can be a bit overpowering). This is a budget Lagavulin, and it shows, but if you want Lagavulin for less than $60 (CAD) then this will do the trick quite nicely (even if you're now buying a five year-old whisky instead of an eight year-old).
For other thoughts on the 2002/2010 bottling, see the following:
The introduction of NAS expressions that are: a) being added to product lines, or b) replacing existing products (as the Macallan 1824 Colour Series has replaced the Fine Oak and Sherried line-ups, for example), or c) being offered to consumers for prices that far exceed existing age-stated expressions (Talisker Storm vs. Talisker 10 year-old), aside, it is the concept of "age statement" and/or "vintage" "redaction" - which I define as when a distillery drops the age statement from an existing expression entirely and then expects you to pay the same amount for a bottle of unknown quality / provenance - that really, really bothers me.
I'd been struggling with how to put this idea to "paper", so to speak, when Sku announced that Jim Beam was replacing the existing Jim Beam Black, which carried an eight year-old statement, with a NAS version. It'll still be called Jim Beam Black, but they're no longer going to tell the consumer how old the whisky in the bottle is, which is actually kind of funny, since until now, Jim Beam Black produced for sale in the U.S. has been marketed as "double aged" - if a straight bourbon is aged less than four years, the distiller is required to tell you how old it is, more than four years and they don't have to tell you anything - so with an eight year-old age statement, "Double Aged" simply means that it's been aged twice as long as was required for them to not have to put an age statement on it. Confused yet? Just wait, because Jim Beam Black produced for export (to Canada, Europe, and placed beyond) currently carries a six year-old age statement, and is marketed as "Triple Aged", which in marketing-speak means that it's been aged three times longer than would be required for the distiller to market it as "straight bourbon". So let me get this straight, "Double Aged" means eight years old, and "Triple Aged" means six years old? Now I'm a bit confused... At least we can take solace in the fact that a NAS Jim Beam Black has to be at least four years old, otherwise they'd be legally obligated to put an age statement on it...and Jim Beam isn't the only bourbon distiller to be playing games with their age statements, as Sku has so kindly reported here, and here.
So, where am I going with this? Well, Jim Beam, Macallan, and the other companies that Sku identifies aren't the only distillers that have been dropping or otherwise fiddling with age statements: Diageo did it with the Johnnie Walker line-up, dropping the 15 year-old Green Label entirely, then removing the 18 year-old age statement from the Gold Label - which became the 'Gold Label Reserve' - and then introducing a new 18 year-old Platinum Label; and The Glenlivet recently introduced a new line-up of NAS cask strength whiskies as part of its Nadurra line-up, while at the same time reducing the original Nadurra 16 year-old from cask strength to 48% ABV.
Which brings me to my final example: a few years ago I picked up a
bottle of Dun Bheagan Islay (Vintage 2002/2010), which you can see in the photo on the right. A quick Google search nets you an Auto-Complete entry for 'Dun Bheagan Islay 8 years old', which returns reviews of the whisky in question from Whisky Magazine (by both the late Michael Jackson, and Dave Broom, no less), as well as a number of other hits which clearly identify the Dun Bheagan Islay as an eight year-old whisky...and incidentally, the Ian Macleod website continues to market the Dun Bheagan Islay as an eight year-old whisky; and it was an eight year-old whisky for a long time - a 2003/2011 vintage replaced the 2002/2010 bottling, which was in turn replaced by a 2005/2013 bottling...and then suddenly the LCBO was carrying a 2008 vintage. Was I reading that correctly? How, in 2014, could a whisky distilled in 2008 be eight years old? The simple answer is that it can't possibly be an eight year-old whisky, and a close inspection on the label showed that it isn't...it is, in fact, a 2008/2013 vintage (see photo below), which makes it five years-old, not eight years-old, yet being sold for the exact same price as the earlier, older vintages that the LCBO had carried previously.
So, what's going on here? I understand that, as an independent bottler, Ian Macleod may not be able source the exact same whiskies for each vintage, hence the fact that the Dun Bheagan Islay doesn't actually state what distillery it is from (a 'Bastard' malt, if you will), so while scuttlebut says that the Islay bottling is a young Lagavulin, it's possible that Diageo has turned off the taps on selling barrels to independents, something that Oliver Klimek speculated about back in 2012. And if this is the case, then in a way, it's out of their control, but this isn't the case with Jim Beam, or Macallan, or any of the other distilleries that had decided to drop age statements (or reduce the alcohol by volume of certain expressions in order to stretch stocks).
Of course, one can't complain too much about transparency with the Dun Bheagan Islay, unlike in the case of Jim Beam Black or the Macallan 1824 series, as the distillation date and bottling dates are printed on the bottle and bottle sleeve, even though all the information available online still reports the whisky as being an eight year-old (and the LCBO website is using a photo of the 2005/2013 bottling as part of the product description, which leads you to believe you're buying an eight year-old whisky, not a five year-old whisky), but in a way, it is about transparency: can Jim Beam ensure that a new NAS Black has the same flavour profile as the existing eight year-old (or six year-old), or is this all about consistency and standardization of product? If they're going to eliminate the age statement to make the "Double Aged" and "Triple Aged" expressions the same thing and get rid of this marketing BS, then maybe it's a change for the better, but if it's just a way to make what were eight year-old and six year-old whiskies into something that could be as young as four-years old (which is what Jim Beam White is), then why bother having a 'Black' and a 'White' expression at all?
OK, with all that said and done, here's my review of the Dun Bheagan Islay, 2002/2010 (eight years old), Non-Chill Filtered, Cask Numbers 701912 / 701926 (5400 bottles). In truth, I'm not entirely sure why I picked this bottle up, but I did...and then it spent a year or so in storage until I opened it - to replace the bottle of Talisker 10 year-old that I'd finished.
Nose: peat...lots of it, and smoke. Then some alcohol (a bit biting), but it mellows a bit and gives way to campfire smoke and smoked bacon.
Taste: thick, oily, mouth-coating, and then bacon, bacon, more bacon, and sourdough soaked in bacon grease.
Finish: quite hot, and a bit harsh...lingering, then more bacon...
Balance: not as balanced as I'd like, as the nose and palate are a bit one dimensional (as much as I like bacon, it can be a bit overpowering). This is a budget Lagavulin, and it shows, but if you want Lagavulin for less than $60 (CAD) then this will do the trick quite nicely (even if you're now buying a five year-old whisky instead of an eight year-old).
For other thoughts on the 2002/2010 bottling, see the following:
- Whisky Lassie (I sent her a sample);
- Whisky, Empirically;
- The Adventures of Whisky Girl; and
- The L.A. Whiskey Society