Rational Behind No Age Statements?

[PhantomLamb]

Ok, this question may have been asked many times over, my apologies if I missed it.  I'm going on my 3rd year getting into bourbon and other libations and actually trying to learn about what's in the glass.  This has raised the same question over and over in my mind, why NAS?  What is the benefit of not being transparent?  Does it cause more accountability for the distillers to produce quality over quantity?  Do they simply not have enough supply to meet the demand for certain year-old bourbons?

 

For instance, was watching an interview the other day with Jimmy Russell, and he mentioned that WTRB is a mix of 6, 8, and 12-year barrels.  I already loved WTRB, but knowing that there is some 12 year in there makes me love it more because, even more so now, it's a steal at $40 OTD.   Why in the world wouldn't you put this information on the bottle or even your website?  What do these guys have to lose?  

 

Please tell me if I'm missing the obvious.  It hasn't made sense to me from day 1 of my bourbon "journey" and I'm still scratching my head.

 

Thanks,

[tascabe]

I am not a definitive source of any kind - but I think it gives the distiller the freedom to mix as needed/available to get the flavor they want/need.

If they are limited to only what the age statement says - they loose that freedom and the flavor might be too far out of their target.

There is also likely a monetary angle as well - they are able to use younger barrels - so long as they can get the target flavor still.

That means that they can then use older barrels if they want for 'premium' prices bottles.

[Kepler]

2 hours ago, PhantomLamb said:

For instance, was watching an interview the other day with Jimmy Russell, and he mentioned that WTRB is a mix of 6, 8, and 12-year barrels.  I already loved WTRB, but knowing that there is some 12 year in there makes me love it more because, even more so now, it's a steal at $40 OTD.   Why in the world wouldn't you put this information on the bottle or even your website?  What do these guys have to lose? 

 

As much as I am a Turkeyhead and Russell fanboy, WT is not the best example.  The way WT/Campari spins whiskey ages is my biggest pet peeve with them.  "Mix of 6, 8, and 12 year" is not an age statement at all, it's their marketing spin to avoid a 6 year age statement. By law this would be a 6 year old whiskey.  But they would rather have no age statement on the label and instead use their marketing department to get the word out about the older whiskey contained in the batch.  They are betting on the fact that many consumers will fixate on the 12 year number.  See how that works?

The percentage of 8 and 12 year contained in the batch is not disclosed.

 

We as consumers are encouraging this behavior if we don't collecticely refer to RB what it is -- nothing more than 6 year whiskey. And damn fine 6 year whiskey at that!

Edited October 26, 2020 by Kepler
typo

[Kepler]

Some good articles on the subject of age statements

 

https://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2016/09/lets-demystify-label-age-statements.html?m=1

 

 

https://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2018/04/wild-turkey-takes-broad-swipe-at.html?m=1

 

[PhantomLamb]

1 hour ago, Kepler said:

 

As much as I am a Turkeyhead and Russell fanboy, WT is not the best example.  The way WT/Campari spins whiskey ages is my biggest pet peeve with them.  "Mix of 6, 8, and 12 year" is not an age statement at all, it's their marketing spin to avoid a 6 year age statement. By law this would be a 6 year old whiskey.  But they would rather have no age statement on the label and instead use their marketing department to get the word out about the older whiskey contained in the batch.  They are betting on the fact that many consumers will fixate on the 12 year number.  See how that works?

The percentage of 8 and 12 year contained in the batch is not disclosed.

 

We as consumers are encouraging this behavior if we don't collecticely refer to RB what it is -- nothing more than 6 year whiskey. And damn fine 6 year whiskey at that!

Makes sense, however, even 6 year would be better than nothing.  I guess my point is, I would still appreciate even if it is a blend of different ages for them to state it.  It doesn't change my opinion as a consumer at all.  Will check out those articles too, thanks Kepler!

[flahute]

2 hours ago, PhantomLamb said:

Makes sense, however, even 6 year would be better than nothing.  I guess my point is, I would still appreciate even if it is a blend of different ages for them to state it.  It doesn't change my opinion as a consumer at all.  Will check out those articles too, thanks Kepler!

If they list the different ages used they also have to disclose the percentages used. This is why Four Roses no longer lists the different ages on the back of the LE Small Batch.

For something like Rare Breed where they are trying to hit a profile I bet the percentages changes a bit every time which means they'd have to change the label every time.

[flahute]

4 hours ago, Kepler said:

 

As much as I am a Turkeyhead and Russell fanboy, WT is not the best example.  The way WT/Campari spins whiskey ages is my biggest pet peeve with them.  "Mix of 6, 8, and 12 year" is not an age statement at all, it's their marketing spin to avoid a 6 year age statement. By law this would be a 6 year old whiskey.  But they would rather have no age statement on the label and instead use their marketing department to get the word out about the older whiskey contained in the batch.  They are betting on the fact that many consumers will fixate on the 12 year number.  See how that works?

The percentage of 8 and 12 year contained in the batch is not disclosed.

 

We as consumers are encouraging this behavior if we don't collecticely refer to RB what it is -- nothing more than 6 year whiskey. And damn fine 6 year whiskey at that!

A number of years back I participated in a blending exercise at WT where we were given the component parts of Rare Breed along with a control sample of actual Rare Breed. We then had to construct it and Jimmy himself would taste the samples to declare a winner. Eddie was patrolling to room. I can verify that the 12yr component is a very small part and yet important. As you would guess it's mostly 6yr. There's a fair bit more of the 8yr than 12yr.

[flahute]

To answer the larger question, having an age statement locks you in and removes flexibility. This was not a problem prior to the boom when you could have a 12yr age statement and not only always have 12yr old barrels around but also barrels older than that added to your blend. With the boom, as supplies dwindled, you find yourself needing to use every barrel you have even if they aren't good. One choice is to bottle less to maintain quality. That doesn't work however if the brand in question is a flagship brand like Elijah Craig. The show must go on so they had to drop the age statement and go NAS. This upset a lot of people of course.

 

In uncertain times (talking about the boom and increasing demand) there's going to be a reluctance to place an age statement because of the possibility of having to remove it and face consumer backlash.

If a brand does decide to introduce an age statement today it's likely because it's not a core product so limiting production of it does not impact the primary face of the brand.

 

The exception to this is Beam who was able to bring back the 9yr age statement on Knob Creek while also introducing 12 and 15yr age statements as new brand extensions.  I guess they have a lot of whiskey!

[PhantomLamb]

This is really interesting, thanks flahute.  I never realized so much thought went into this.  Will be interesting to see what the expansions at places like BT will do to this or put a dent in it.

[Jazz June]

In addition to the points about blending and labeling flexibility, do age statements really do that much to sell the product? Buffalo Trace has a lot of NAS products that people go crazy for. There may be rumors or marketing statements about how old Stagg Jr. or Taylor BP are, but there could be four year old whiskey in there for all we know. Even GTS and WLW don't actually have age statements on the bottle (not that I don't trust the BTAC fact sheets). People don't seem to be going crazy about Knob Creek 15 despite the impressive age statement. So I think age statements do add some value, but maybe not as much as we might think. You can build hype in your brand without them.

[PaulO]

I remember living through the great dropping of age statements.  That was maybe 10 or 15 years ago.  

No age statement means the contents are at least four years old.  As with the Rare Breed and some other brands, it could have older barrels in the batch.  Bottled in bond all must come from the same season, so barrels not more than a couple months apart dumped together, and at least four years old.

One area where age statement is required is less than four years.  Some of that crafty stuff is labeled two, or three.

For me, a nice age statement, like six or more, helps me rationalize the price above well liquor.

I'm so glad KC 9 year is back.  I'll be picking some up soon.    

[Kepler]

On 10/26/2020 at 2:58 PM, flahute said:

A number of years back I participated in a blending exercise at WT where we were given the component parts of Rare Breed along with a control sample of actual Rare Breed. We then had to construct it and Jimmy himself would taste the samples to declare a winner. Eddie was patrolling to room. I can verify that the 12yr component is a very small part and yet important. As you would guess it's mostly 6yr. There's a fair bit more of the 8yr than 12yr.

Cool story

[flahute]

47 minutes ago, Kepler said:

Cool story

When they gave us the actual Rare Breed control bottles I remember Eddie saying "Don't even try to pour this into your glass for Jimmy to taste. He'll know."

[Old Hippie]

To simplify things a bit:

An age statement on the label must reflect the youngest whiskey in the blend. You could have 10% 4 yr and 90% 10 yr and you would have to label it as 4 yr.

An age statement is part of the label approved by TTB. If you change the age statement from year to year then you have to apply for label approval.

The distillery wants and in some cases needs flexibility in order to deliver consistent quality. Often age is just a number and while it has relevance in the product in the bottle, it is just part of the aging equation. The barrel itself, where the warehouse is located (on a hill or in a valley, facing south or north etc.) and where in the warehouse the barrel is located are all factors in aging. An 8 year old barrel at the bottom of warehouse A could have less oak imparted character than a 6 year old barrel from the top of warehouse B.

We in the US tend to be more hung up on age statements than the rest of the imbibing world. In many places of the world, some single malts are losing their age statements. Macallan is an example. They are now red label, green label etc instead of 12 yr, 15 yr etc. They are not able to make that transition in the US as of yet.

I tend to look at age (when known) as a factor is determining value of a purchase, and delivering a set of expectations as to what I am about to taste. At the end of the day it is all about the liquid to lips for me. 

[PhantomLamb]

1 hour ago, Old Hippie said:

To simplify things a bit:

An age statement on the label must reflect the youngest whiskey in the blend. You could have 10% 4 yr and 90% 10 yr and you would have to label it as 4 yr.

An age statement is part of the label approved by TTB. If you change the age statement from year to year then you have to apply for label approval.

The distillery wants and in some cases needs flexibility in order to deliver consistent quality. Often age is just a number and while it has relevance in the product in the bottle, it is just part of the aging equation. The barrel itself, where the warehouse is located (on a hill or in a valley, facing south or north etc.) and where in the warehouse the barrel is located are all factors in aging. An 8 year old barrel at the bottom of warehouse A could have less oak imparted character than a 6 year old barrel from the top of warehouse B.

We in the US tend to be more hung up on age statements than the rest of the imbibing world. In many places of the world, some single malts are losing their age statements. Macallan is an example. They are now red label, green label etc instead of 12 yr, 15 yr etc. They are not able to make that transition in the US as of yet.

I tend to look at age (when known) as a factor is determining value of a purchase, and delivering a set of expectations as to what I am about to taste. At the end of the day it is all about the liquid to lips for me. 

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I think I knew most of this.

 

I understand from the previous posts that having the age statement locks the distillery in, but, I'm sorry IMO, this still reflects a lack of quality to me as we are in the bubble and production can't keep up.  For all the old timers on here, it seems that the overwhelming opinion is that products like WT101, W107, EC, etc. that had the age statement in the past were superior to what's on the shelf today.  Again, just my opinion, but kind of disappointing for me.

 

Thanks,

[Double C's]

On 10/26/2020 at 4:30 PM, Jazz June said:

In addition to the points about blending and labeling flexibility, do age statements really do that much to sell the product? Buffalo Trace has a lot of NAS products that people go crazy for. There may be rumors or marketing statements about how old Stagg Jr. or Taylor BP are, but there could be four year old whiskey in there for all we know. Even GTS and WLW don't actually have age statements on the bottle (not that I don't trust the BTAC fact sheets). People don't seem to be going crazy about Knob Creek 15 despite the impressive age statement. So I think age statements do add some value, but maybe not as much as we might think. You can build hype in your brand without them.

Beam shot themselves in the foot with the KC 15. Most KC drinkers can't rationalize spending double the price for a KC15 when they can find the single barrel store picks around the same age and at 120pf. I am still kicking myself for not clearing the shelf at a walmart last year when I found a KC pick that was almost 15yr old and they had them priced at $30.

[flahute]

4 hours ago, Double C's said:

Beam shot themselves in the foot with the KC 15. Most KC drinkers can't rationalize spending double the price for a KC15 when they can find the single barrel store picks around the same age and at 120pf. I am still kicking myself for not clearing the shelf at a walmart last year when I found a KC pick that was almost 15yr old and they had them priced at $30.

Though it's still possible that a 12-15yr barrel can end up in the single barrel program, they are now mostly gone and not coming back in any large quantity like before.

I bet in a year or so when those bargain 15yr picks are a distant memory that more people will warm up to the KC15. Assuming it's good of course.

[BottledInBond]

8 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

To simplify things a bit:

An age statement on the label must reflect the youngest whiskey in the blend. You could have 10% 4 yr and 90% 10 yr and you would have to label it as 4 yr.

An age statement is part of the label approved by TTB. If you change the age statement from year to year then you have to apply for label approval.

The distillery wants and in some cases needs flexibility in order to deliver consistent quality. Often age is just a number and while it has relevance in the product in the bottle, it is just part of the aging equation. The barrel itself, where the warehouse is located (on a hill or in a valley, facing south or north etc.) and where in the warehouse the barrel is located are all factors in aging. An 8 year old barrel at the bottom of warehouse A could have less oak imparted character than a 6 year old barrel from the top of warehouse B.

We in the US tend to be more hung up on age statements than the rest of the imbibing world. In many places of the world, some single malts are losing their age statements. Macallan is an example. They are now red label, green label etc instead of 12 yr, 15 yr etc. They are not able to make that transition in the US as of yet.

I tend to look at age (when known) as a factor is determining value of a purchase, and delivering a set of expectations as to what I am about to taste. At the end of the day it is all about the liquid to lips for me. 

That is theoretically how it supposed to work. They aren’t supposed to list anything but the youngest aged whiskey, unless they also list a breakdown of the percentages of each aged whiskey. The TTB doesn’t enforce it well. I love WT but they have run afoul of this one before. As a recent example, WTMK Decades said 10 to 20 years on it. Technically following the TTB rule, they should only been able to list the 10 year age statement on Decades, unless they were going to do the % breakdowns, which they did not

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 10/26/2020 at 1:10 PM, flahute said:

To answer the larger question, having an age statement locks you in and removes flexibility. This was not a problem prior to the boom when you could have a 12yr age statement and not only always have 12yr old barrels around but also barrels older than that added to your blend. With the boom, as supplies dwindled, you find yourself needing to use every barrel you have even if they aren't good. One choice is to bottle less to maintain quality. That doesn't work however if the brand in question is a flagship brand like Elijah Craig. The show must go on so they had to drop the age statement and go NAS. This upset a lot of people of course.

 

In uncertain times (talking about the boom and increasing demand) there's going to be a reluctance to place an age statement because of the possibility of having to remove it and face consumer backlash.

If a brand does decide to introduce an age statement today it's likely because it's not a core product so limiting production of it does not impact the primary face of the brand.

 

The exception to this is Beam who was able to bring back the 9yr age statement on Knob Creek while also introducing 12 and 15yr age statements as new brand extensions.  I guess they have a lot of whiskey!

@flahute, that is absolutely the best articulation of the answer as I've seen, thanks! I would definitely second what you say regarding the fact that age statements lock you in and remove flexibility, and often in a big way. I've seen this in my own work quite a bit. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[PhantomLamb]

You guys are awesome, thanks so much for all the info.

[flahute]

6 hours ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@flahute, that is absolutely the best articulation of the answer as I've seen, thanks! I would definitely second what you say regarding the fact that age statements lock you in and remove flexibility, and often in a big way. I've seen this in my own work quite a bit. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

I will never turn down a compliment from someone as accomplished as yourself. The next time I see you I need to hear about your difficulties in navigating this.