Gained Age Statements?

[Conquistador]

The thread started by sku, "Lost Age Statements", got me to thinking about the opposite situation. How often has a whiskey gone from NAS to AS? Over in the PHC 2014 thread, there is a link to the Red White and Bourbon blog about the possibility of a PHC 2014 release based on ultra aged Bernheim wheat whiskey. The RWB blog post also mentions that the standard Bernheim expression will soon get a 7 year age statement, a change from their current NAS label. I can"t recall this happening to an bourbon or other American whiskey in recent memory. Are there other examples? And why would HH or anyone else bother to add an age statement? Is it pure marketing, to try and boost sales of what appears to be a relatively slow-moving product? Is that the primary purpose of age statements, in the eyes of distillers? And if a post by Squire in another thread is valid, that age statements are a crutch, then why are us enthusiasts generally up in arms when an AS bites the dust? Are we really just sheeple caught up in a marketing scheme from ages (pun intended) ago that distilleries cooked up to boost sales? What are your thoughts?

[393foureyedfox]

I imagine age statements really came about due to the glut era. One distillery probably tried to take sales from another by saying "ours is x years old", then another would reply with labeling stating theirs is "X+2 years old", and so forth. With a glut among all distillers, they'd have to do something to try to stand out among their competition.

I don't see age statements being added to anything until the next glut, and even then, several years into it.

I also think people these days get upset over age statements dropping because it is an obvious sign a change is coming to something they like. There is no reason to spend the money to make a new label unless you are going to cut costs by changing the product. The profile will shift gradually over the next few years. BUT, having an age statement doesn't necessarily mean the profile won't change either. A distiller may keep making something X years old, but shift the 'honey barrels' to a higher price product line. The whiskey is still X years old, but the profile may change a bit. I don't think age statements are as big a deal as they are made out to be, but I do think that if you like a certain whiskey and the label is changed to NAS, you should load up on as much as you can, because it is going to change.

count me wrong, here is a link about one:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?21802-Bernheim-Wheat-7-y-o

Edited February 13, 2014 by 393foureyedfox

[squire]

I guess the message is age doesn't matter unless sales are lagging.

[MyOldKyDram]

That appears to be the size of it.

[danz]

Well, the Old Fitzgerald line added age statements for some of their selections in the 1950s and 1960s to make them Very Old Fitzgerald, Very Xtra Old Fitzgerald and Very Very Old Fitzgerald. I am not as familiar with the history of Scotch marketing, but I would guess they had age statements that far in the past as well. Age, rarity (because fewer bottles will be aged a long time) and the possibility of changed (better) flavors over time seem like they would have been a rich vein of marketing material for quite a while, not just the past 3 decades.

You could look at Russell's Reserve as a variant on Wild Turkey that added a 10 year age statement. Similarly, the BTAC line is somewhat recent and has several examples of age-stated offerings that compare with younger or non-age stated base lines. The Beam line has Knob Creek and some other age stated or older variants that are more recent than the white label.

Price discrimination ideas in marketing indicate that distilleries should introduce lines that are older if that will help tap a segment of the market willing to pay a premium for the new product line. Jefferson, Diageo (the new Old Blowhard, etc.), Heaven Hill with the new 20 and 21 year olds are all bourbon examples. Also, the various 20+ year old ryes that are in the market. And the Scots have more than a few 40 year olds out there (not that I have tried them).

[Conquistador]

I guess the message is age doesn't matter unless sales are lagging.

Exactly. If age truly doesn't matter (as seems to be what many are saying in Tylermke's "Iron Triangle of Bourbon" thread), being trumped by price and proof, then is the uproar over the recent loss of age statements really much ado about nothing? Just sound and fury, signifying nothing? Have we been hypnotized over the years by clever marketing, a hype machine if you will, that creates the illusion that age statements are precious things, indicators of quality, and therefore we react at their loss by bemoaning there loss and demanding that they be preserved?

Full disclosure: Much of what I drink is age-stated (EC12, AAA10, W12, VSOF12), but I do find that some NAS bourbons are among my favorites (ETL, FRSmB). But with so many options to select from in today's market, if I see a product lose it's age statement, my immediate reaction is that I will stop buying that product, at least temporarily. I'm not sure if it is because I'm caught up in the age statement hype machine, or if I'm just wary of the implied change in quality, or a little of both.

[squire]

I think a good bit of the upset is over the former age number remaining conspicuously on the label in the same place it was when the label was age stated. The intent is to deceive and any excuse to the contrary is an insult.

[portwood]

... then is the uproar over the recent loss of age statements really much ado about nothing? Just sound and fury, signifying nothing? Have we been hypnotized over the years by clever marketing, a hype machine if you will, that creates the illusion that age statements are precious things, indicators of quality, and therefore we react at their loss by bemoaning there loss and demanding that they be preserved?

A lot of truth in that, but I think it applies more to Bourbon/Rye - where only NEW wood is used - than in the case of other spirits. IMO, age statements are more likely to be an indicator or quality in the case of Scotch (where new wood is not generally used) than American whiskey.

Age statements in Bourbon generally start in the 6 year range. The Scots rarely state age below 10 years.

A 4-5 year old NAS Bourbon is likely to be of higher quality (compared to a 6yo age stated) than a 3-9 year old NAS Scotch (compared to a 10yo age stated).

[Quantum]

Exactly. If age truly doesn't matter (as seems to be what many are saying in Tylermke's "Iron Triangle of Bourbon" thread), being trumped by price and proof, then is the uproar over the recent loss of age statements really much ado about nothing? Just sound and fury, signifying nothing? Have we been hypnotized over the years by clever marketing, a hype machine if you will, that creates the illusion that age statements are precious things, indicators of quality, and therefore we react at their loss by bemoaning there loss and demanding that they be preserved?

As foureyedfox stated earlier, age statements in and of themselves don't guarantee quality and consistency, but the loss of an age statement does almost guarantee a loss of quality and consistency.

[smokinjoe]

As foureyedfox stated earlier, age statements in and of themselves don't guarantee quality and consistency, but the loss of an age statement does almost guarantee a loss of quality and consistency.

I'm not so sure, Q. I think a strong argument could be made that the dropping of an age statement may be the best way to guarantee quality and particularly consistency.

[Quantum]

I'm not so sure, Q. I think a strong argument could be made that the dropping of an age statement may be the best way to guarantee quality and particularly consistency.

That is a sound argument in theory, and it is one we hear from the producers. Maybe I am just looking at the negative examples, but it seems like it rarely plays out this way. I don't recall Basil Hayden getting any worse after it went NAS, but that is a pretty low bar to start with.

[squire]

For the lower and mid shelfers I wish they would do away with age statements and concentrate on quality and consistency instead but that may be the triumph of hope over experience.

[smokinjoe]

That is a sound argument in theory, and it is one we hear from the producers. Maybe I am just looking at the negative examples, but it seems like it rarely plays out this way. I don't recall Basil Hayden getting any worse after it went NAS, but that is a pretty low bar to start with.

I think that if the tasters/minglers at a distillery have more latitude in the barrels that they can select from, it could add to a better and more consistent profile.

I'll suggest that Weller 12 might be a better whiskey without the age statement. That is, of course, if the target age is still around the 12 yrs. To my tastes, anyway.

[danz]

For the lower and mid shelfers I wish they would do away with age statements and concentrate on quality and consistency instead but that may be the triumph of hope over experience.

This idea makes me nervous. With the proliferation of very expensive whiskeys, a lot of standards are moving to the lower and mid shelf, but I would not want them to lose the age statements they have. For example, I wouldn't want the Elijah Craig 12 year or Weller 12 to go NAS, particularly since the Weller 12 is their one holdout age-stated Weller. Four year old whiskey is nice, but so is 8-12 year old whiskey, and sometimes the extra age is exactly what you want.

[dSculptor]

I can’t see distilleries putting on age statements any longer, especially in these times, it limits them. Removing them has become more and more the norm, it sets them free from limitations. Personally I like to see them, I like knowing that info. However if a distillery is putting out a new product that is.. let’s say older than 7 yrs. old, I believe it to be advantageous to them to put the age on it, eg.. if you go into your fav. store and see 2 new whiskies on the shelf, same price, but 1 says it’s 10 yrs. old, which one are you going to buy?

[Quantum]

I think that if the tasters/minglers at a distillery have more latitude in the barrels that they can select from, it could add to a better and more consistent profile.

I'll suggest that Weller 12 might be a better whiskey without the age statement. That is, of course, if the target age is still around the 12 yrs. To my tastes, anyway.

I would love the idea of a Weller "#12 brand" made up of 8-12 year old barrels. I think 10 years is about the sweet spot, but a little older and a little younger could be great.

I do not love the way OWA 107 tastes, compared to OWA 7 yr old. This does not fill me with hope when it comes to NAS Weller 12.

[jwacky]

Heaven Hill is starting to make some noise about adding a 7 year age statement to Bernheim Straight Wheat. Funny, because even before reading this thread I thought it was something being done because they have a lot of it sitting around so maybe this will move it a bit quicker.

[squire]

I'll suggest that Weller 12 might be a better whiskey without the age statement.

They could do that, then give it a new name, say, Special Reserve.

[Flyfish]

I would love the idea of a Weller "#12 brand" made up of 8-12 year old barrels. I think 10 years is about the sweet spot, but a little older and a little younger could be great.

.

Could be great. WT RB has some 12YO in it. But a whole lot more that is younger. If the flavor profile is maintained, I don't care about the age statement. Like currency, though, once they discover they can debase it, bad things tend to happen.

[smokinjoe]

I would love the idea of a Weller "#12 brand" made up of 8-12 year old barrels. I think 10 years is about the sweet spot, but a little older and a little younger could be great.

I'll raise an SB Blend to that!

:toast:

[squire]

Could be great, yes, but when you have warehouses full of whisky only some of the barrels will be great, some may even be legendary, but most will be ordinary and there's the rub.

[mosugoji64]

Hypothetically, the loss of an age statement could allow the distillery to focus on flavor profile and consistency, but can anyone think of a whiskey that got better after it lost its age statement?

[Quantum]

Could be great, yes, but when you have warehouses full of whisky only some of the barrels will be great, some may even be legendary, but most will be ordinary and there's the rub.

But I only want the great/legendary. It is kind of essential to my idea for what Weller 12 would be without an age statement. It would need to be right around 10 years old, available in 90 or 107 proof, and readily available.

[HighInTheMtns]

But I only want the great/legendary. It is kind of essential to my idea for what Weller 12 would be without an age statement. It would need to be right around 10 years old, available in 90 or 107 proof, and readily available.

So you want ORVW?

[smokinjoe]

Hypothetically, the loss of an age statement could allow the distillery to focus on flavor profile and consistency, but can anyone think of a whiskey that got better after it lost its age statement?

Some might say that the OWA actually got better for some time after dropping of the age statement a couple of years back. Now, those same folks might say it has since degraded, but there were a lot of positive reviews that came out shortly after going to NAS.