Dropped Age Statements Really Don't Concern Me.

[smokinjoe]

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.

And there may be the answer. "Splurge". If you (meaning us all) "splurge", you have a certain expectation of what that whiskey should be, and you want to have as much information as possible if you're going to lay down the coin. For pours within your cost "comfort zone", you are OK with little information. Result? The age statements get put on the premium to ultra-premium labels, and you'll pay the going rate. "Affordable" everyday bourbons will contain limited info. Sounds reasonable and fair to me.

[meadeweber]

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.

Very good points Gary. I think I would have to agree.

And of course, Squire is right, if you drop the age statement get that number off the label.

[Lepisto]

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.

Lot's of good points on this thread, but I wanted to expand on PaulO's point. It seems like losing an age statement is like hiding a price increase. We know that old bourbons cost more because of evaporation and space the barrel takes up. Adding in younger barrels to meet volume means it is costing less to produce, yet the price stays the same. It is similar to dropping proof but the price stays the same - that is some expensive bottled water.

[squire]

Good point . . . . . . . .

[Harry in WashDC]

Putting the Squire comment re: the misleading "number" on the label with the smokinjoe "Splurge" comment to the test inadvertently (i.e., I messed up), I grabbed what I thought was a "6" VOB BIB from a dark upper shelf and didn't realize it was a "6 years old" I had stashed (just HAVE to put those in paper bags one of these days) until it was opened. Had a swig, anyway. It STILL tastes just like (or at least acceptably close to) a "6" I bought on sale last week for $11 a 750.

IN SUM - Take off the damn "6" so I don't mess up again. I'll still buy your stuff as long as it tastes like it should.

[Scotch Neat]

Anyone who thinks that removing age statement is not an issue is not playing with a full deck PERIOD.

Should a QUALITY 4 year old cost more than a 15 year old of average quality?

What is QUALITY is it the ingredients? is it the barrel or both?

Aging = Smoothness PERIOD Nothing = time!!!!

[GaryT]

Anyone who thinks that removing age statement is not an issue is not playing with a full deck PERIOD.

Should a QUALITY 4 year old cost more than a 15 year old of average quality?

What is QUALITY is it the ingredients? is it the barrel or both?

Aging = Smoothness PERIOD Nothing = time!!!!

I'd respectfully disagree on several points.

1. Aging does not equate to "Smoothness PERIOD". Too much age can lead to a very woody/bitter whiskey.

2. Your first statement implies that those who have commented with a differing opinion to yours are crazy or stupid.

What makes SB.com such a great community is respect for differing opinions. Everyone is entitled to theirs, and I'm glad we don't all agree on everything (how freaking boring would this be if that were the case!) But something else that makes this a great community is our respect for those with whom we disagree, which includes not assuming that those folks are crazy, or stupid, or anything other than passionate sufferers of Whiskeria Nervosa.

[GAbiker]

Well said Gary. There are other "forums" where "downvoting" and incivility run rampant. It's the respect for others opinions, sense of comradery and mutual love of bourbon that makes SB.com the ultimate place for all things bourbon.

And aging isn't EVERYTHING with bourbon. Where the barrel is placed in the rick house has a tremendous effect on aging in and of itself. And many well respected "master distillers" have stated that the "sweet spot" in aging bourbon is 6 to 12 years.

I'd respectfully disagree on several points.

1. Aging does not equate to "Smoothness PERIOD". Too much age can lead to a very woody/bitter whiskey.

2. Your first statement implies that those who have commented with a differing opinion to yours are crazy or stupid.

What makes SB.com such a great community is respect for differing opinions. Everyone is entitled to theirs, and I'm glad we don't all agree on everything (how freaking boring would this be if that were the case!) But something else that makes this a great community is our respect for those with whom we disagree, which includes not assuming that those folks are crazy, or stupid, or anything other than passionate sufferers of Whiskeria Nervosa.

[smokinjoe]

Anyone who thinks that removing age statement is not an issue is not playing with a full deck PERIOD.

Should a QUALITY 4 year old cost more than a 15 year old of average quality?

What is QUALITY is it the ingredients? is it the barrel or both?

Aging = Smoothness PERIOD Nothing = time!!!!

Well, at least you said it with conviction.

[Scotch Neat]

I'd respectfully disagree on several points.

1. Aging does not equate to "Smoothness PERIOD". Too much age can lead to a very woody/bitter whiskey.

2. Your first statement implies that those who have commented with a differing opinion to yours are crazy or stupid.

What makes SB.com such a great community is respect for differing opinions. Everyone is entitled to theirs, and I'm glad we don't all agree on everything (how freaking boring would this be if that were the case!) But something else that makes this a great community is our respect for those with whom we disagree, which includes not assuming that those folks are crazy, or stupid, or anything other than passionate sufferers of Whiskeria Nervosa.

Of course that is my personal opinion and anyone is entitled to disagree. With that said, is it not the aging that makes the whiskey?

Yes if you leave it in the barrel for 35 years it will most likely be foul.

The point of subjecting the raw spirit to time in wood is to improve the flavor and smoothness of the spirit.

[Harry in WashDC]

Hey, all -

I just noted the timestamp on Aging = smoothness etc. At that time of the morning, I be yelling at MYSELF: Mostly, "Get out of the chair and go to bed, dammit." After a couple quick rounds, I usually get up and go to bed.

RE: dropped age statements - EC12 is about as old a bourbon as I like, and even EC12 I have to be in the mood for. So for some of the straights that are old but don't meet the bonded criteria, I do like to know what's in them, at least the firrst few times I buy it. Of course, at my age, I've consumed enough that I pretty much know what's what without the specific age printed on it.

[PaulO]

... For pours within your cost "comfort zone", you are OK with little information. Result? The age statements get put on the premium to ultra-premium labels, and you'll pay the going rate. "Affordable" everyday bourbons will contain limited info. Sounds reasonable and fair to me.

Even with bottom shelf pours, I like as much information as possible. I rarely buy any NDP stuff anymore. I'm a big fan of bonds.

[smokinjoe]

Even with bottom shelf pours, I like as much information as possible. I rarely buy any NDP stuff anymore. I'm a big fan of bonds.

Of course, Paul. I meant that as more of a generality of Bourbonia.

[GAbiker]

Funny Joe! You ARE a guru!

Well, at least you said it with conviction.

[shoshani]

Putting the Squire comment re: the misleading "number" on the label with the smokinjoe "Splurge" comment to the test inadvertently (i.e., I messed up), I grabbed what I thought was a "6" VOB BIB from a dark upper shelf and didn't realize it was a "6 years old" I had stashed (just HAVE to put those in paper bags one of these days) until it was opened. Had a swig, anyway. It STILL tastes just like (or at least acceptably close to) a "6" I bought on sale last week for $11 a 750.

IN SUM - Take off the damn "6" so I don't mess up again. I'll still buy your stuff as long as it tastes like it should.

[Quantum]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the Weller 12 yr. The bottle I picked up a few months ago was terrific, but the one before that was too sooty for me to even use as a mixer.

I will have to disagree with you on the OWA. The last few bottles I have tried have been lacking something. It is like all the flavors are almost there, just not quite developed. I still enjoy it, but it leaves a slight aftertaste of untapped potential. When it is cut down to 90 proof in the WSR, the difference is even more noticeable. I have a few age stated bottles from 09 that are nothing special, but incredibly drinkable. I go back for a second pour more often than not. I find the current offering completely uninteresting. Its not bad, especially for the price, but I would just as soon drink generic light beer.

[GaryT]

Reading David Driscoll's latest, which included Jim Rutledge's thoughts on age statements. Posed in terms of managing supply, Jim's response (paraphrased slightly):

"My preference . . . . would be to remove the age statements and instead allocate volumes. If you don’t have enough barrels to produce a specific age, then remove the statement, give me younger barrels, and let me see if I can match the flavor profile with the younger Bourbons. As long as we can maintain the quality—that’s key in my book. An age statement is a marketing tool. What’s most important to me is what goes into the bottle, not what the number says on the label."

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2015/8/16/the-end-of-an-era-jim-rutledge-retires.html

[squire]

Much to think about in that statement.

[Restaurant man]

Reading David Driscoll's latest, which included Jim Rutledge's thoughts on age statements. Posed in terms of managing supply, Jim's response (paraphrased slightly):

"My preference . . . . would be to remove the age statements and instead allocate volumes. If you don’t have enough barrels to produce a specific age, then remove the statement, give me younger barrels, and let me see if I can match the flavor profile with the younger Bourbons. As long as we can maintain the quality—that’s key in my book. An age statement is a marketing tool. What’s most important to me is what goes into the bottle, not what the number says on the label."

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2015/8/16/the-end-of-an-era-jim-rutledge-retires.html

Thanks for posting that link. I hadn't seen it. No question Jim's departure will be a loss for the industry. His comments show how challenging these times are for distillers. Good thing I can't "run out of bourbon" at my house [emoji41][emoji6]

[MOwhisky4me]

I also find it interesting in one of Jim's responses when he says...

"As our inventory continues becoming younger, it’s a challenge to maintain the same exact level of quality. It’s going to have to change some. The goal for us is to make sure it’s not a perceptible change by the vast majority of consumers. "

While I agree that maintaining the flavor profile is more important than adhering to a minimum age for a barrel, I also know that you simply can't maintain the same quality of flavor in many cases if a barrel doesn't age long enough. Age statements aren't what determines the quality of a bourbon or what defines a top shelf bottle, but it gives a level of assurance that the distillery had patience to let that liquid mature.

I guess I'd be less irritated by the removal of age statements if I thought it was driven by master distillers wanting to maintain flavor profiles rather than bean counters wanting to boost profits.

[squire]

As would I, unfortunately that's not how decisions are made in these corporate owned entities.

[Spade]

Thanks for posting the link. What I find refreshing about the interview is his transparency.

[smokinjoe]

I guess I'd be less irritated by the removal of age statements if I thought it was driven by master distillers wanting to maintain flavor profiles rather than bean counters wanting to boost profits.

Oh, it's a combination of both, I'm sure. And, determining the appropriate balance is one of the most difficult duties of any company whether that business be distilling, car making, plastic extruding, lawyering, widget making, etc...

The following is a nice thought and quite quixotic, but we know where it helped lead them:

"We make fine bourbon.

At a profit if we can.

At a loss if we must.

But always

Fine bourbon."

Maybe, if Pappy had a few more "bean counters", we'd still be enjoying his whiskey.

[MOwhisky4me]

Gotta say, that is an interesting and valid thought. With the current bourbon "boom" it's easy to forget the challenges that the industry went through in the not too distant past.

[squire]

We are still enjoying "his" whisky, courteous of the bean counters at Buffalo Trace.