Dropped Age Statements Really Don't Concern Me.

[smokinjoe]

I certainly can appreciate and understand the opinions of those who shudder at the spate of dropped age statements from bourbon labels, and look with a skeptical eye at the intent of Sazerac and Heaven Hill with their move to the back label of age statements on their respective Eagle Rare and Elijah Craig offerings. I understand all of the reasons why I should want an age statement....But, as I think of it, I can't come up with many compelling reasons why I need one. Yes, it guarantees a minimum age of the whiskey in the bottle. But, does that age mean it's good? Is a 12 year guaranteed age from potentially depleted barrel stocks "better" than an offering with lesser aged barrels in them? Does "age" mean quality? In the past...or particularly, now, in this boom-time 2015 market? I can't help but think that I would rather the distilleries bottle to a consistent profile, rather than to an age. It's the profile that I really want. To this point, as I look at the numerous age statement drops we've witnessed in the past few years, I can't think of one where the taste and my enjoyment of it has been diminished. Which then begs the questions: Could I say the same had they not loosened up the minimum age requirement? And if they could, in what kind of volume ?

Yes, age statements are cool. There is a comfort in them...or, is that was a comfort.

In the end, age statements for me are a nice little addition to a label, and I will always appreciate when they are included. But, they really don't bring much to the party for me, after that.

[BigBoldBully]

Certainly an age statement is not a guarantee of quality. In a perfect world, I would prefer accurate information about the warehouse locations, range and proportion of ages of the whiskey in the bottle, distillation and barrel entry proofs, quality of the barrel wood, the grains, the yeast, etc. But faced with a choice between a simple age statement and a shift to no age statement at all, I feel like the degree of information provided is going in the wrong direction and it does concern me at least a little.

It is reassuring that you have not so far enjoyed the NAS versions any less. Personally, a possible counterexample that springs to mind is the Weller line, including the WSR. I have put the 7 yo age stated up against several newer examples in blind tests, and the NAS simply do not measure up.

[Golzee]

Jesus is just alright with me...age statements are about the same

[kickert]

That's exactly what they want you to think Joe. And in a perfect world, removing age statements would remove limitations on making great whiskey. However, I just don't see it working that way. I agree with BBB, I want more information and not less, even if that information is ultimately of marginal importance.

I am not worried about first batch of non-age-stated bourbon tasting different than the last batch of the aged stated one. I am worried about the gradual decline in quality. Its the frog in boiling water story -- we can tolerate a lot if it comes gradually.

Just go back and taste Jack Daniels from the early 90s. Most people wouldn't remember a shift, but that pour is much different then the hot-banana infused swill they pass in the square bottles today.

[jsrudd]

Its the frog in boiling water story -- we can tolerate a lot if it comes gradually.

Just go back and taste Jack Daniels from the early 90s.

I agree, especially regarding the superior quality of Jack Daniels from the 80s and 90s.

If age statements really don't matter, distillers should lower age statement rather than removing them. If enough 12-year-old bourbon can't be sourced to make Elijah Craig 12, why not just lower the age statement to 10 years while "retaining the flavor profile"?

[Richnimrod]

Hmmmm, Good points made by you, Joe, as well as BBB, and also by kickert.

I guess I will always be a bit suspicious whenever less verifiable information is available, especially when it once was consistently available. :bigeyes:

I totally agree on the examples from the distant past (JD) and more recent past (the Wellers).

...And, I too, fear the 'boiled frog' strategy that may be employed by the distilleries when age statements disappear.

I guess I may luckier in that regard than some of the younger folx; in that my taste buddies are possibly in a slow decline, as my advancing age slips up on them. HA! :slappin: Not entirely kidding on that one. :shocked:

[smokinjoe]

It is reassuring that you have not so far enjoyed the NAS versions any less. Personally, a possible counterexample that springs to mind is the Weller line, including the WSR. I have put the 7 yo age stated up against several newer examples in blind tests, and the NAS simply do not measure up.

Ha! Interestingly, The Weller's (specifically OWA) would be my Exhibit A for recent lost age statements that have had no impact on flavor and enjoyment for me. I have had numerous bottles since the change, always go in fearing that there is going to be some degradation, and always coming away content that it hasn't missed a beat and is as good as ever. Surely a case of YMMV. Conversely, I have thought the W12 to have taken on a sooty quality over the past couple of years, and wonder if BT is pushing the limit on quality barrel availability at 12 years, and ripe for a reboot. I can't speak to the WSR though, as I never drink it.

As far as intent of the distilleries management, I see them as being less nefarious as y'all! . I don't think they're all going around looking to make a poorer product, as I think they're sharp enough to realize that pursuing that will catch up with them and result in an end that is counter to want they all want...that is, Sell More Whiskey.

Edited August 5, 2015 by smokinjoe

[jeffrey r]

All points well taken. Age does not automatically equal quality. Heck, my AS OC10 obviously doesn't hold a candle to plenty of younger bourbons I have around. But for example, anecdotal reports are that 1792 has diminished after going NAS, and that EWSB has diminished in its recent 2006 bottles that are noticeably younger than many recent EWSB releases.

With prior EWSB, you had bourbon that was generally around 10 years old. I have some EWSB outliers that are closer to 11 years old, and they are outstanding with a bit of extra depth and character from the extra time in the barrel. The 2006 seems to be closer to 9 years old, which in and of itself should not be fatal. But reports are not glowing about the 2006.

As to 1792, I have a few bottles left of 9 year old store selections, and a couple of bottles left of the 8 year AS. In that case, there's no real reason that I should settle for the younger juice of the NAS.

When Fighting Cock went NAS, I bough a few more backup AS bottles. Especially with FC being a bit rough around the edges, I can't see going NAS really helping that profile.

Bottom line, I can't fault the producers for going this route out of necessity. But they're not doing it to improve quality, or even maintain a current standard. HH wants EWSB in the market, so once they sold out of 2005 EWSB, instead of waiting for the current stocks to mature, they filled in the gap with younger 2006 juice. Is what it is, but fortunately I don't need to "settle" for that either.

Will be interesting to see how this shakes out over the next few years, assuming the boom continues.

[BigRich]

Oh shut up Joe. Why do you always have to be so contrarian?

Seriously though, for me it is not the lack of an age statement that bothers me but rather the dropping of one. I especially find leaving the number on the bottle but dropping the years to be blatantly deceitful.

I enjoy many fine bourbons with no age statements (mostly BT and 4R) but they are usually the ones that never had an age statement to begin with. Among all whiskey types I've found movements in the quality over the years. ETL for example I found to be amazing the early to mid part of the last decade then I felt it took a nose dive. Recent bottles I've found more in line with the older versions and I like them much better. Was it worse? No that's too subjective. I just didn't like it as much.

I liken the dropping of "years old" to what Diageo tried with Cardhu 10+ years ago. When their stock ran low they changed it to a "pure malt" from a single malt and blended in other malts to meet demand. All they did was change that one word on the label from "single" to "pure" so that the casual consumer would see no difference. The spirits press and SWA were in an uproar about how deceiving this was and they ultimately went back to a single.

I see what some of these bourbon producers are doing as no different. Your average Joe (pun intended) who drank blah blah 7 year old for years is now grabbing blah blah #7 without knowing the difference. I think that is wrong. Let me be clear... WE are not those buyers. I don't concern myself with any of this like others have because it annoys me or I find quality to be diminished or I personally feel short changed. I'm bothered because I find the labeling practice to in general be wrong. Morally for sure with a hair across the line into legality.

[BigRich]

But I also think we've spent too much time bitching about all this too and should move on.

[TunnelTiger]

My problem is that I don't believe any of them can maintain a "consistent profile" going forward on what was/is an aged product. Not that the new NAS will be bad, it just won't taste like the aged one.

Especially the ones I really enjoy.

[smokinjoe]

...I especially find leaving the number on the bottle but dropping the years to be blatantly deceitful.

I see what some of these bourbon producers are doing as no different. Your average Joe (pun intended) who drank blah blah 7 year old for years is now grabbing blah blah #7 without knowing the difference. I think that is wrong. Let me be clear... WE are not those buyers. I don't concern myself with any of this like others have because it annoys me or I find quality to be diminished or I personally feel short changed. I'm bothered because I find the labeling practice to in general be wrong. Morally for sure with a hair across the line into legality.

1,001% agreement with you on this, Richard. The practice of removing the "years old" statement, but leaving the number like what BT did with VOB is positively DEPLORABLE in my opinion. The explanations as to why have been ludicrous and stretches even my ability to look past. It is/was the WRONG thing to do, and I wish they would do the Right thing by removing the number in its entirety, if they can't make it an actual age statement.

[Old Dusty]

1,001% agreement with you on this, Richard. The practice of removing the "years old" statement, but leaving the number like what BT did with VOB is positively DEPLORABLE in my opinion. The explanations as to why have been ludicrous and stretches even my ability to look past. It is/was the WRONG thing to do, and I wish they would do the Right thing by removing the number in its entirety, if they can't make it an actual age statement.

The really odd thing to me here is that BT/Sazarac DID remove the 7's from OWA and WSR when they went NAS. So what changed w VOB and (I think) the OC 8? As far as your OP, I am somewhere in the middle. I love OWA and continue to buy the NAS. But while I did buy WSR7, I do not buy the NAS. At 90 proof it needs some age to be interesting. Too young and thin. The OWA gets by (IMO) w the proof punch. As another example I buy Henry McKenna 10/100 due to price/quality ratio. Hard to beat the age/proof/price combo. But I don't love HH house style enough to continue to buy if they were to drop the age statement. I don't buy EWBIB but I snap up the HH6 White label whenever I see them. Overall I guess I do PREFER age statements but if it's a fav I will buy NAS until I get burned by a significant profile change-eg WSR.

[BourbonJoe]

I won't buy anything that does not have an age statement. I already have enough age stated bourbon to last my lifetime.

[kjbeggs]

I think "Consistent Flavor Profile" is the key phrase here.

If the age statement disappears and 2024 ECnot12 tastes the same as 2014 EC12, then we can say it didn't really matter.

But, if 2016 EC12 is "almost as good" as 2015 EC12, then 2017 is almost as good as 2016, etc., etc., on down the line, then we will have a pronounced difference between 2014 Age Stated EC12, and whatever they call 2024 EC.

Then there will be a whole new batch of SBers, thinking about how they long for those good old bottles of age-stated bourbons, and those thoughts will be uploaded to the SB.Com "site" via neural implant, while they telepathically send their drones on dusty hunts.

[Spade]

Overall I guess I do PREFER age statements but if it's a fav I will buy NAS until I get burned by a significant profile change-eg WSR.

This sums up my views. An age statement isn't necessarily a deal breaker for me IF the profile is maintained.

I'd appreciate a little transparency from the distillers. Don't feed me a line about how age isn't all that important if you've been using the age as a selling point previously. When there's a glut, age matters. Once supply dwindles, it's all about the profile. Give me a break.

[T Comp]

I'll go with what Oscar Wilde says "with age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone".

[smokinjoe]

Overall I guess I do PREFER age statements but if it's a fav I will buy NAS until I get burned by a significant profile change-eg WSR.

That pretty much sums it up for me too, E. Sure, an age statement is preferable. But,I trust my own tastes to determine the worthiness of a whiskey for me. Not, what is written on the label. If my tastes tell me that something is "off", then I'll make a change, regardless of what's written or not written on the label.

[GAbiker]

Hear Hear Richard. Not like we're gonna quit drinking boubon. And I always wondered....if every barrel is different wouldn't ever year's barrels be different? So what was 12 YO last year might be good but what's 12 YO THIS year may not be as nice a pour.

Bill

But I also think we've spent too much time bitching about all this too and should move on.

[CorvallisCracker]

Dropping the age statement sacrifices one of the advantages the large producers have over the small ones. Some of the small ones are have been making whiskey long enough that they have four year old product (requiring no age statement) or even older (which they might put on the label). Here in OR we have Ransom's "Henry DuYore" (4 yo) and Stein's five year old. So say you're a bourbon newbie and you're at the store looking over the selection. Let's see...this Stein is 80 proof...forty nine bucks...five years old...and this Basil Hayden's is eighty proof...forty seven bucks...and "patiently aged"...WTF does that mean...think I'll go for the Stein...

I suppose at this point the large producers believe that the small producer's market share can be ignored. But that will change, and dropping age statements will accelerate that change.

[GaryT]

First, just want to applaud Joey for coming up with some really great thread topics!

Dropped age statements don't bug me. If Heaven Hill called me up and said "We can keep Elijah Craig 12yr, but it's going to taste different because of the record hot summers than it has in the past - or, we can drop the age statement, blend in some 11yr - maybe even some 10yr - to keep the profile consistent. Which do you prefer?" . . . first, I'd ask "How did you get this number?!" Then I'd tell them to keep the profile as consistent as possible. Could they change where they pull the barrels from to try to maintain the age statement? Maybe - but we all know that the same distillate put in oak at the same time would taste different after X years based on where it ages. So even that might spare the age statement, but alter the flavor.

Now, does that mean folks ONLY drop age statements to maintain consistency? Nope. If the flavor goes dowhill, does that mean I have to keep buying it? Nope. I won't say any label is only as good as its last bottle, but if I'm no longer satisfied with recent purchases - I remind myself how blessed I am to have SOO many other choices!

Do I like having an age statement? When it is something I haven't tried, I do like that additional information, as it provides "some" insight into what I might expect. But once I've tried it, the age statement isn't as meaningful to me.

[amg]

I'd love it if every bottle showed exactly when the whiskey was barreled and when it was dumped, like EWSB and Booker's do. I'm not hung up on it being a certain age, but I like to know as much as possible about what I'm drinking.

[squire]

An age statement (or lack thereof) doesn't affect my purchase decision but retaining a false number on the label once a statement is dropped does.

What I would find useful is the name, address and DSP of the true distiller.

[smokinjoe]

I'd love it if every bottle showed exactly when the whiskey was barreled and when it was dumped, like EWSB and Booker's do. I'm not hung up on it being a certain age, but I like to know as much as possible about what I'm drinking.

I would think that supplying that info on anything more than "Single Barrel" or, extremely small batch dumps would be near impossible? But, I get your point.

[PaulO]

I think an age statement is important consideration for price, and to how much barrel influence to expect. I drink mostly NAS bourbon. If I was going to splurge, I better see a number and years. A dropped age statement means all types of cats and dogs can go into the batch to make up volume.