The NAS Dilemma: Blessing, Curse, or Simple Reality? Part I

One of the growing trends in both the scotch whisky and American whiskey industries is the proliferation of 'no age statement' spirits. In some cases, these are new expressions, in other cases spirits that were previously age dated have dropped their claims. Change is almost always contentious, especially from long-time consumers who want to keep buying the same whisk(e)y that they always have. So is this good, bad, or something that we're simply going to have to live with?

Age dates present a certain amount of difficulty for distillers. First and foremost it means that they have to sit on stocks of whisk(e)y until they pass a certain point before they can be blended together to make their final products. Whiskeys/whiskies must be labeled with the youngest spirit going into the bottle. Even if, say, a bottle contained 99% 30 year old spirit and 1% 5 year old, the label would have to say that it was a 5 year old spirit.

In a sense this is a bind of the distillers' own making. For decades, marketing departments have created a perception among consumers that older spirits are inherently better and should command exponentially increasing prices with age. Old spirits were made to embody luxury and sophistication, while younger expressions were often thought to be downright plebeian.

Whether this is actually true is extremely complicated. Spirits extract flavors from barrels and oxidize at varying rates depending on a host of factors including temperature shifts (as the liquid heats up, its volume increases, pushing it into the pores of the wood), location in the warehouse, the quality and type of wood that the barrels are made from, and any other number of things that are difficult to quantify (though Buffalo Trace is striving mightily to nail some of them down via their Single Oak Project). So when new make spirit is dumped into two nearly identical barrels that are stored side by side in the same warehouse, it's entirely possible that years down the road they will taste very different from each other. This is why single cask/barrel releases are often so fascinating, as we get to see the variation that is normally swallowed by the skill of the master blender in creating a consistent flavor profile from a wide variety of casks or barrels.

So while most distillers have used the system of age dating to their advantage, many are now presented with a dilemma: demand for scotch and bourbon is increasing strongly right now, but few predicted this rise ten or twenty years ago when the stocks that are now ready to be bottled were originally laid down. So many are struggling to keep up with demand. But there is a potential out - dropping the age statements. Without that constraint, it's theoretically possible to use younger stocks that have the flavor profile the blenders are looking for to create something the same or at least very similar to their previous age dated expressions.

This is the tack that that Macallan is currently taking with their whiskies in the UK. The company recently announced that all of their whiskies younger than 18 years old would become NAS and from here on out be graded by color. Reactions have been, to say the least, mixed. As some have pointed out, Macallan has been selling NAS whiskies for years now, but they haven't always been flying off shelves. It is kind of galling to hear a major distiller intimate that there is any correlation between quality and color, though Macallan has stated that their whiskies will not be artificially colored with E150 caramel color. Older whiskies can actually be quite pale, while newer whiskies can absorb quite a lot of color quickly, especially from first-fill casks. So as far as I can tell, this is mostly a gimmick and just replaces the old constraint of age with a new one, which means that the blenders now have to find barrels with the appropriate color, not just the appropriate smells and flavors, to make their whiskies.

Macallan's new NAS "1824 Series" via Master of Malt

And we get to the ultimate question: are customers willing to pay the same, or sometimes more, money for younger whisk(e)y in the bottle, even if it tastes the same? There is a certain logic behind paying more money for older spirits. Evaporation means that a barrel can lose anywhere between twenty and seventy percent of the spirit it started with over the course of a decade. Warehousing isn't free. Aging whisk(e)y means that capital is tied up for a very long time. Older whisk(e)y can become over-oaked, making it nearly useless for anything but bucking up younger whiskies.

The announced prices for Macallan's new whiskies mirror the old age-dated expressions, with the entry level single malt coming in around $55 (same as the old 12 year) and rising from there. On the one hand, it doesn't feel quite right to be paying the same amount of money for younger whisky. However, it might take more work from the blenders to sample a larger range of casks to pull the NAS whiskies together. But ultimately we don't know and it's harder for a regular customer to judge what an NAS whisk(e)y should be worth.

Ultimately that may not matter. As David Driscoll of K&L Wines has noted, a lot of customers really just don't care. They're buying an NAS whisk(e)y because a friend suggested it, they heard good things about it, the brand has been talked up, or any other number of reasons. Some, like Black Maple Hill bourbon, have been flying off shelves despite the lack of age statements on their labels. And many will argue quite rightly that how the whisky tastes is more important than anything else. But for distillers, it is still a risk. They can do all the market research ever, but no change is guaranteed to succeed. Only time will tell whether Macallan's almost wholesale switch will come off well or if consumers will drift to other brands that continue to use age statements.

What are your feelings about the trend so far?

Whisky Review: Macallan Cask Strength and the Effects of Dilution

After drinking a dram of Macallan Cask Strength back in January, I decided to pick up a full bottle as it was on sale for only $55 in Oregon, roughly the same price as the much weaker Macallan 12 Year. While I think it's a good whisky at full strength, I was also interested to see what could be found if it was diluted down to a more standard proof. Ryan over at Value Whisky and Josh at The Coopered Tot have both run experiments with cask strength whiskies, which found that letting a diluted whisky 'integrate' with water produces a much more enjoyable dram. So I decided to take that path instead of diluting the whisky and drinking it immediately. I made dilutions of Macallan CS to 55%, 50% and 45% ABV and bottled them to let them sit for a few days before tasting them.

45% ABV Dilution


Nose: very nice balance between bourbon-y notes of sweet grain, vanilla and wood, with gentle sherry, jammy raspberries and raisins - very fruit-forward

Taste: slightly sweet and fruity up front, but not particularly rich, sherry is relatively subdued - rides underneath and grows towards the back of the mouth, pepper is still there - comes in strong then fades into mild bitterness

Finish: sweet, bright fruit, slightly bitter wood, noticeable residual alcohol, lingering pepper - still very much a sherried whisky in the end

I think this would be the perfect way to entice a die-hard bourbon or rye drinker into the world of single malts. The nose reminds me very much of a well-aged American whiskey, with strong grain-derived elements and the sherry taking a back seat. Overall I think I would describe this as the most pleasant strength to drink Macallan CS at - not the most interesting, but an easy sipper that should please quite a lot of palates.

50% ABV Dilution


Nose: more wood, dry sherry underneath, some sweeter, round fruit, vanilla, oatmeal

Taste: sugary sweetness up front, then muddled sweet fruits, big pepper, bitter chocolate or mocha near the back

Finish: wood, sweet sherry, chocolate/mocha, lingering pepper.

This is one of my favorite strengths for this whisky. All of the key flavor elements are present and assert themselves very nicely. The nose is strong without being overpowering, the palate is rich without singeing the taste buds, and the finish lingers with delicious bittersweetness. This is essentially what I wanted Macallan 12 Year to be and expect that it could be if the distiller was willing to offer it at a higher bottling strength.

The only downside here is that the relative youth of this whisky starts to manifest itself at this strength, with a bit more heat than I would hope for. I'd be interested to compare the No Age Statement version I have with the 10 year old cask strength Macallan that is sold in other markets. I've heard that the NAS version is made up of whiskies that are roughly 8-12 years old and I think it shows. A greater proportion of older whiskies would help to round it out a bit.

55% ABV Dilution


Nose: alcohol becomes more noticeable, more closed, poorly defined vanilla and sherry, light oatmeal and brown sugar

Taste: less sweet, but sugar remains as an undercurrent, bigger pepper, sherry becomes much stronger further back, bittersweet chocolate near the back

Finish: pepper, sherry, less wood, still distinctly bittersweet

There's nothing particularly wrong with this strength, I just feel like it doesn't offer anything that the 50% version doesn't, but there's also a stronger burn that detracts a bit from the experience. By the same token, it's not as full-throated as the undiluted cask strength whisky, so 55% is just an uncomfortable middle ground.

58.2% ABV - Full Strength

Nose: heavy Oloroso sherry with a hint of PX sweet raisins, bourbon undertones of sweet, malty grain and vanilla, sugar, bittersweet chocolate, general fruitiness, some nice floral notes after airing out

Taste: rich but not too sweet up front, fruit and sherry expand from the tip of the tongue, growing sweeter as the spirit spreads across the mouth, a huge burst of pepper blooms mid-palate and extends into the finish, drying towards the back of the mouth with a healthy dose of wood

Finish: lingering pepper and sherry, a touch of bitter wood and mocha, vanilla

The Real Deal. There's a reason they bottle it at this strength. Completely in your face whisky. Everything is big and it holds nothing back. There's a fairly strong amount of burn, which is somewhat unsurprising given the bottling proof and age, but it's a bit hard to pick out from the big pepper flavors on the palate and finish. As I mentioned above, I think this could be an even better whisky if there were a greater proportion of older malt in this whisky as it could do with just a bit more refinement.

There are comparisons to be made with Arran's Sherry Single Cask, as they both have similar flavor profiles, but the Macallan CS is younger and brasher. The Arran is big and bold with lots of pepper, but feels like a more integrated whole, whereas the Macallan jerks you around a bit. The Macallan also shows a much stronger sherry influence, which I'm guessing comes from first-fill casks. At the moment I'd have to give the nod to Arran as they're the same price here in Oregon, but eleswhere the Macallan would be a slightly better value.

As you can see, there are basically the same elements at each strength, but the manner and degree to which they present themselves can vary significantly. Personally, I'm most fond of the 50% and full strength versions. The 50% is probably the most balanced, with some of the harsher edges rounded out without becoming quite as subdued as the 45% version. However, there are times that the full-blast cask strength is what I want and it offers quite a ride. I'd highly suggest experimenting with dilutions at different strengths when you get a cask strength whisky. There are other perspectives to be found within when it's not running at full bore.

Whisky Review: Speyside Showdown

A few months ago I reviewed three different Speyside cask strength whiskies from Aberlour, Glenfarclas and Macallan. It so happens that I have the 12 year old whiskies from these three distillers as well. They present interesting facets of the way that Speyside whiskies can be produced. So it seemed logical to compare them to each other.

Aberlour 12 Year


Nose: richly fruity - red wine, raisins, raspberry preserves or fruit leathers - slightly sour, creamy sherry, very floral, a wisp of vanilla, nougat and toffee, nutty honey, which becomes sweeter, creamier and more rounded, with more dried fruits, Oloroso sherry, and an even more pronounced floral/perfumed character after adding a few drops of water

Taste: sharp, gingery sweetness up front, ginger continues throughout, fades into mixed creamy oak tannins, pepper, sherry, malt and slightly sour peat, which becomes sugary sweet up front with a slightly diminished ginger bite, gaining heat a bit further back after dilution

Finish: dry chocolate, figs, ginger, peat, sherry, slight bitterness, oak, peanuts and toasted marshmallow

This is the older version of the Aberlour 12 Year, at 43% with chill filtration. It was the first scotch whisky I ever bought. It was on sale in Oregon for $30, which made it the cheapest I could get my hands on. I was completely unprepared for the flavors it presented to me, especially because of my lack of experience with straight spirits. I tried it a number of different times over the last year or so, but it never really engaged me until recently. It may have just been a matter of trying it in a different setting, but everything finally clicked. Unlike the other two whiskies I'll be reviewing here, Aberlour ages this whisky in both ex-bourbon barrels and used Oloroso sherry casks, then marries the two varieties together before bottling. My guess is that the preponderance of the whisky comes from the ex-bourbon barrels as the sherry influence seems less pronounced than what is found in the other two whiskies. This lets the extremely floral nose of this whisky shine over the other elements. However, the nose is definitely the highlight of this whisky. The palate is pretty decent, but the gingery spiciness is just a bit too dominant and the flavors could do with a touch of a punch-up. But hey, for a $30-40, 12 year old single malt, it's really good. This makes me interested to try the newer version that is bottled at 48% without chill filtration. However that version has also been priced around $55, at which point it's going to be tempted to pony up the extra dollars for Aberlour A'Bunadh. But if I can ever find it closer to $45, I'll be sure to snap up a bottle.

Glenfarclas 12 Year


Nose: raisins, dates, chocolate, malt, raspberry, fresh sherry, honeyed malt underneath, some floral perfume, which becomes slightly diminished, with more honeyed grain, retaining plenty of gentle dried fruit and floral character after dilution

Taste: rich sugar and honey sweetened malt through to mid-palate, ginger spice arrives early and holds throughout, chocolate and dates come in near the back along with pepper, with the ginger bite becoming a little more gentle after adding a few drops of water

Finish: pepper, ginger, chocolate, dates and malt, which becomes slightly bitter like cocoa powder after adding water

Glenfarclas's whisky is aged entirely in ex-sherry casks, and it shows. The flavors are strongly driven by its aging, with the dried fruits and chocolate taking center stage with strong ginger in the palate and finish. However even with all of the sherry presence, it's actually a drier whisky than the Aberlour. Also, the chocolate/date/malt combo reminds me uncannily of Chocolate Brownie Clif Bars. Given that the 'Farclas often has roughly the same price-point as the Aberlour, I think it's close to a toss-up between the two. Go for the Aberlour if you want something with more malt character, go with Glenfarclas if you'd like a more sherried whisky.

Macallan 12 Year


Nose: moderately sweet sherry, PX/Oloroso split, red wine, raisins, raspberries, malt and vanilla underneath, slightly floral, with the raisins being emphasized over the sherry, and more vanilla after adding a few drops of water

Taste: jammy sweetness up front, with a burst of pepper mid-palate and chocolate-covered coffee beans leading into the finish, with more honeyed raisins, but less expansive flavors after dilution

Finish: sherried malt, edging towards bitter cacao

This is where the review gets slightly unfair, because I was tasting from a mini of Mac 12 whereas I own full bottles of the Aberlour and Glenfarclas whiskies. However, Macallan's 12 Year is also hands down the most expensive, reaching a moderately eye-watering price of $55 here in Oregon. I did try to get some breadth by tasting small samples over the course of a few months, so I still feel reasonably comfortable with my assessment. I wouldn't mind giving it another try, but only if I wasn't the one paying. Macallan sherry oak whiskies are, unsurprisingly, aged exclusively in ex-sherry barrels and it really shows. My initial impression was of very high proof sherry, without much else going on. After a couple more tries I was able to find some other smells and flavors, but the sherry still takes center stage. Its flavors were also somewhat less robust than the other two, which, when you also consider the small price differential between Macallan's 12 Year and Cask Strength whiskies, means that I'd strongly recommend buying the Mac CS instead of the 12 year. If you want a lower proof sherry driven whisky, the 'Farclas would be my recommendation, both in terms of flavor and price.

Looking over all three whiskies, I think they're already arranged how I would rank them. The Aberlour edges out the 'Farclas by a bit, having a bit more complexity and a slightly better price point. The Macallan trails in my opinion, with the whisky almost being overwhelmed by the sherry. However if that's what floats your boat, it's still an interesting dram. It's just that, as noted above, I think the Cask Strength version is a much better representation of what Macallan can do.

Whisky Review: Cask Strength Shootout

Over the course of the last couple of evenings, I've tried three different sherried cask strength single malts from Aberlour, Glenfarclas and Macallan. There were a fair number of similarities between each scotch, especially in terms of the method of aging, their lack of age statements, their bottling proofs, and the fact that each is a big step up from their 12-Year old, lower-proof siblings. At the same time, the fairly wide range of prices means that some seem more worthwhile than others. These reviews are slightly provisional as I tried all three at a bar and thus haven't taken my normal route of tasting a spirit several times on different days. However, they were all fairly healthy pours, so I did get to spend a fair bit of time nosing and tasting each whisky.

Aberlour A'Bunadh


Nose: maple syrup, rubber, tropical fruits, malt, oatmeal, a bit of raisins underneath, which becomes slightly less intense and gains hints of sherry and chocolate sauce after dilution

Taste: lightly sweet up front, followed closely by sherried sweetness that carries through the palate, developing malty chocolate near the end, which gains some oatmeal and maple syrup with dilution

Finish: long, chocolate malt and oatmeal

This is a non-chill filtered, cask strength Speyside single malt from Aberlour. Bottled right around 120 proof (there are small variations from batch to batch), it comes with no age statement, but is likely a blend of malts aged from 10-15 years exclusively in ex-Oloroso sherry barrels (I've also had the 12 year and don't detect significantly more barrel influence in the A'Bunadh). My succinct description of this whisky is that it's breakfast in a glass. The intense maple syrup and oatmeal flavors, especially on the nose, make that an inescapable association. Though it commands a fairly significant premium over the aforementioned 12 Year expression, it's also a huge step up in terms of the intensity and variety of flavors.

Glenfarclas 105 Cask Strength


Nose: slightly sour wine, malt, vanilla, sweeter sherry underneath and raisins, which shifts more towards PX-style sherry over time, with malt becoming more dominant alongside subdued raisins and sherry underneath with hints of chocolate, brown sugar and porridge after dilution

Taste: honey malt sweetness up front, big burst of pepper mid-palate, which transforms into a hit of bittersweet chocolate throughout the whole palate, while retaining the honey malt sweetness and pepper, as well as gaining a bit of tropical fruits after adding water

Finish: long, malt, pepper and bittersweet chocolate

It's a little bit difficult to find info on the exact details of how this whisky is produced. Glenfarclas is also located in Speyside and this whisky is clearly aged in ex-sherry barrels, but I haven't been able to figure out what type of sherry used to reside in the barrels. It is bottled at 105 British proof, which is the same as 120-proof or 60% ABV in the usual sense. As with all of these whiskies, there is no age statement, but what I've read suggests that all of the barrels that are blended to make the final spirit are at least 10 years old and I would say that it seems to be as mature as the A'Bunadh. The hefty dose of bittersweet chocolate found throughout the experience of consuming this whisky ticks it a few marks above the others, but it's hampered by costing at least $20 more than the next most expensive. As with the Aberlour, also I find this to be a significant step up from the lower-proof 12 Year bottling from Glenfarclas, both in terms of the range of flavors and their depth. Whether it's worth the extra coin is up to you.

Macallan Cask Strength


Nose: PX sherry, sweet raisins and malty vanilla, which gains some mocha and maple oatmeal after dilution

Taste: brief citrus sourness at the very begin, slipping into sherried sweetness, then black pepper and drier sherry finally leading into chocolate near the end, which becomes honey malt up front, with more subdued sherry, a malty middle, and chocolate and pepper near the end after dilution

Finish: glowing tropical punch, which becomes long with peppery coffee after adding water

In a slight divergence from the other two cask strength whiskies I tried, Macallan is part of the broader Highlands region rather than the Speyside sub-region. However, they claim that Speyside is their 'spiritual home' and its style is very similar to other Speysiders. Macallan has a tradition of aging all of their whiskies in ex-sherry casks. The Cask Strength expression is part of their Sherry oak line, which are all matured in casks made from Spanish oak. There is no age statement on this scotch (though it is now giving way to a 10-Year Cask Strength expression), but it seems as mature as the 12-Year, so my guess is that the average age of the whiskies blended to make this spirit is right around there. This was the simplest cask strength scotch I tried, being a fairly clear evolution from the basic Mac 12-Year, with the PX sherry-heavy nose. However, the smells and flavors are much richer and there is a certain appeal to the heavy dose of pepper that emerges mid-palate, helping to keep it from becoming insipidly sweet and unidimensional. Additionally, it can occasionally be found for as little as $55, which makes it no more expensive than the Mac 12 and an obvious choice over that expression. Up at $65+, I would say that the Aberlour edges it out, though the A'Bunadh is a little bit sweeter.

To line these three whiskies up, I liked the Glenfarclas a bit more than the Aberlour, which was an improvement over the Macallan. Additionally, the Aberlour is probably the best value out of the three, unless you can find the 'Farclas or Macallan on sale. However, if you're looking for a sherry bomb, it's hard to go too far wrong with any one of the three. You'll just have to try them and see which tickles your fancy.