Now and then. Ah, the joys of nostalgia.
If there’s a topic guaranteed to start an argument around the table, it’s when sports enthusiasts try to pick or assert that a particular sporting team from one era was superior to the team from another era. For example, is the Hawthorn team from the 1980’s better than the Hawthorn team from 2013-2015? Was Don Bradman’s 1948 “Invincibles” side a better cricket team than the all-conquering Steve Waugh side of 1999-2001? If the two teams were to compete against one another, who would win?
Sadly (or happily?) in the case of such arguments, it is all speculation and conjecture. For, quite simply, we will never know. And how do you compare teams across different eras when rules were different, playing conditions differed, and the level of athleticism and professionalism was different. The discussion is nothing more than hypothetical amusement.
Increasingly of late, similar discussions and assertions are translating across into whisky circles. For example, a commonly-seen thread in many online whisky groups or forums is the assertion that the whiskies of today are not as good as what they were 20 years ago. Or that whiskies have changed over the years.
Whisky & Wisdom has explored this theme a fair bit recently, and you may like to read up on some of these assertions and opinions via
Is whisky better or worse today than it was 20 years ago? and
The highs and lows of Macallan and
Glendronach vs Glenfarclas vs Macallan
However, whilst we can only speculate and theorise about how different-era sporting teams might stack up against one another, the situation is altogether different with whisky: We CAN compare whiskies from different eras. If you so choose, you can pop the corks on two bottles of Glen Bagpipe 15yo – one bottled in 1979 and one bottled in 2018 – and you can directly compare and assess for yourself how things have changed. And, perhaps more interestingly, you can decide which one is better.
The challenge with such exercises is that acquiring bottles from the 1960’s and 1970’s is not only difficult but, perhaps more critically, it’s very expensive. Furthermore, you’re at the mercy of how well the older bottling was stored and the condition of its contents. Ullage, evaporation, bottle shock, oxidation, heatstroke, lightstroke can all play havoc with the spirit and, if you do get the chance to taste a whisky that was put into bottle in 1967, how do you know if it’s tasting just as fresh and exactly the same in 2018? Nevertheless, the opportunity to conduct such a test is not one to be sneezed at, and so it was that the good folks at World of Whisky organised and held a “Now and Then” tasting in Sydney.
World of Whisky is a premium, specialist whisky retail shop in Sydney, with arguably the biggest in-store range of whiskies in Australia. The proprietors are also the same team behind “The Whisky Show”, the tasting expo experience held in both Sydney and Melbourne each year. They conduct a wide range and impressive number of tasting events in-store throughout the year.
Through good hunting, perseverance, and perhaps some chance, World of Whisky came to acquire a formidable range of whiskies from decades past (see photographs above). They then had the good spirit and generosity to pair these whiskies with their current-day counterparts, and to put on an organised tasting and presentation in store. Considering the cost involved in acquiring some of these rare and collectible bottlings, the attendance price of $50 was an incredible bargain, and roughly 20 people squeezed into the store to participate in the experience. Such was the appeal of what was on offer, two gents even flew in from interstate to take part in the tasting.
So what was actually on the table to taste? The line-up featured four blends and two single malts. Now, some readers may baulk at this and question the appeal in tasting some seemingly pedestrian blends. But this shows a lack of appreciation and historical understanding. Sure, in today’s environment and atmosphere of single malt madness, a seemingly common, garden variety blend doesn’t attract many plaudits. But wind the clock back to the 1960’s and 70’s, when blends made up 99.9% of retail whisky purchases, and you suddenly enter an era where these blends weren’t just the norm, but actually ruled the roost.
The line up featured the following pairings between an old bottling from decades past, and it’s current day, equivalent release:
- Grants
- Dimple
- VAT 69
- Johnnie Walker Red Label
- Glenfiddich
- Glendronach 15yo
In the case of some of the old bottlings, not all of the “usual” information was printed on the label, and thus the ABV is unknown. The assumption in such cases was that the whisky was either 40% or 43%. Most of the older whiskies had screw tops, and in this particular instance, all six older whiskies were in good condition, i.e. no significant ullage.
What made the tasting particularly interesting was that the pairings were served blind. In other words, whilst we were told which brand or label was being tasted for each pairing at the time, we did not know which one was the older and which one was the current bottling. So, with bias and pre-conceived ideas effectively removed from the equation, we relied purely on our noses and palates to compare each pairing and decide which one we most preferred. This is how things unfolded…
Grants
Then: Grant’s “Stand Fast”. NAS, ABV unknown, screw top, circa early 1970’s.
Now: Grants. 40% NAS.
There was a very distinct and obvious difference between these two whiskies, with one being quite fresh and sweet, whilst the other exhibited very obvious musty notes and it seemed very tired, flat and thin. The mustiness was apparent on the nose (I detected TCA), the palate, and the finish, and pretty much all attendees correctly picked that the musty whisky was the 1970’s bottling.
All attendees unanimously voted the current release as being superior, but there was acknowledgment and sympathy that the 1970’s whisky was not being assessed in its best light, and that perhaps Old Bottle Syndrome (aka Old Bottle Effect) was evident, not to mention the prospect of TCA.
Dimple
Then: Dimple. NAS, 43%, late 1970’s.
Now: Dimple 12yo, 40%.
The whisky textbooks and common whisky lore tell us that blends remain the same for decades, and that the Master Blender continually works hard to maintain consistency and the same flavour profile for a given blend from batch to batch. The two Dimple expressions up for assessment tonight counter that wisdom: These two whiskies were chalk and cheese, and there did not appear to be any common DNA between them.
The first thing I noticed was that one of the whiskies seemed to have a stronger hint of sherry on the nose than the other one. And, by sherry, I mean sulphur. Yes, there was the tiniest hint of sulphur on the nose, although this was not evident on the palate, and the dram had a syrupy texture and was pleasantly sweet. The other whisky, in stark contrast, offered tropical fruit and perhaps even a hint of smoke. I found it very difficult and challenging to pick my favourite here, as they both offered interesting elements, just in different places. Based on the miniscule presence of sulphur, I concluded that the sulphur-tainted whisky was the current release.
When the whiskies were subsequently unveiled, I learned I’d correctly identified which was the older, 1970’s bottling (it was the one without the sulphur!) and I’d also voted the older bottling as my favourite of the two.
VAT 69
Then: VAT 69, NAS, ABV unknown, believed to be from the late 1960’s.
Now: VAT 69, NAS, 40% ABV
Before going into detail, it’s worth noting that the whisky in the older bottle had, in fact, been in that bottle for over 50 years!!! Trying the two whiskies side by side, there was perhaps a small thread of commonality, but one dram was significantly more perfumed, powerful, richer, and more interesting than its counterpart. More interestingly, this same whisky displayed (to my palate) a very obvious higher proportion of malt. It was much sweeter and thicker on the palate, and the finish was longer and more enduring. The higher malt content led me to suspect this was the older bottling, and this was subsequently revealed as being correct. Based on a show of hands, it seems almost everyone else in the room also voted the older bottling superior.
Johnnie Walker Red Label
Then: Johnnie Walker Red Label, ABV unknown, NAS, believed to be from mid 1960’s.
Now: Johnnie Walker Red Label, 40% ABV, NAS.
Again, this was a rare and special moment, noting that the older whisky had been bottled roughly 50 years ago. Now there’s been plenty of articles and anecdotes about how much better Red Label had been in the past, so there was almost a sense of resignation (nay, a fait accompli) that we would easily identify the older bottling and judge it the superior of the two.
Sure enough, this was the case. Whilst a small sense of commonality was evident between the two, one whisky was clearly and evidently more full-flavoured; it had a richer and thicker mouthfeel on the palate; the flavours were more pronounced; there was a stronger floral note; and – best of all – it actually had a few hints of smoke. Yes, Red Label from the 1960’s was indeed a very nice dram, and certainly many rungs higher up the ladder than its current day incarnation.
Glenfiddich
Then: Glenfiddich Pure Malt, NAS, 43%, from the 1980’s.
Now: Glenfiddich 12yo, 40%.
Not surprisingly, given this was a single malt, the common DNA and similarities between the old and new were far more obvious and evident. One whisky was a shade darker than the other, but both exhibited that signature note of pear drops. However, for the first time tonight, the room was split. There was conjecture over which whisky was the older bottling, and even more conjecture over which whisky was deemed superior.
I placed my vote (and my bet), and although it transpired that I’d incorrectly guessed which whisky was the older one, I was perhaps not too surprised to learn that I’d voted the current-day whisky as the superior bottling. Glenfiddich 12yo is a dram that I earnestly believe has greatly improved in the last few years, and here was further evidence.
Glendronach
Then: Glendronach 15yo, 40%, late 1990’s.
Now: Glendronach 15yo, “Revival”, 46%.
Glendronach is the resuscitated darling of the sherry world, and if there’s one category of single malt that’s sure to have long-time drinkers asserting that “things were better in the old days”, sherried whiskies are the litmus test.
Things got off to an interesting start when the older bottling was shown to the audience, and the tell-tale words of “Mit farbstoff” were printed on the label. German for “With caramel”, it was amusing that this once-revered sherry monster in fact still used artificial colouring to help its cause.
In any event, tasting the two drams side by side, those with a more experienced and sensitive palate could instantly tell which was which, courtesy of the ABV. The expression at 46% stood out for its intensity and sharpness, whilst the expression at 40% sat a little flatter. The older bottling was perhaps a little flawed, with a touch of rubber on the nose and a sour/bitter note on the finish. Whilst I was a big fan of the old 1990’s bottling (and still have one or two squirreled away somewhere), the current day Revival bottling was indeed superior in this match up.
(Of course, in the small print, we should make mention that the current Revival 15yo bottling contains whisky that is, in fact, much older than 15 years)
————
So with all that done, what was the final verdict? For me, personally, it was a draw. Three times I voted the older bottling superior, and three times I voted the current bottling the better of the two. More importantly though, the exercise highlighted a few points for me. In no particular order…
- Today’s blends are made to a price point. Priced as they are, the basic, entry level blends – such as Red Label or Vat 69 – clearly have to contain very young whiskies these days, and perhaps a higher proportion of grain whisky. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was evident that some of these blends contained a higher proportion of malt whisky, and perhaps also older whiskies in the constituent components.
- Could it be that the current boom in single malt appreciation had its foundations laid by vastly superior and tasty blends back in the 1960’s and 70’s? Is this what triggered interest in the category to begin with? Could the current boom in single malt appreciation be being underpinned and sustained by the fact that so many of today’s entry level blends are seemingly comparatively dull, boring, and inferior?
- Back in the day, Vat 69 was clearly a VERY good whisky. And, whilst Red Label would be ignored or glossed over by most people reading this article, things were clearly very different for this blend back in the mid 1960’s. The Vat 69 was a true revelation.
- Contrary to popular (and sentimental) opinion that single malts were arguably better in decades past, the two samples in this particular tasting begged to differ. In some ways, this shouldn’t surprise us. Quality control and automated systems make for far more consistent production these days, and there is no denying that new make spirit is being filled into vastly superior casks than was the case in the past. Modern-day wood policies and maturation regimes are significantly improved than was historically the case, and it’s great to see some distilleries displaying the benefits of this.
My sincere thanks to the team at World of Whisky for organising this wonderful event and for sharing these whiskies with an audience.
Cheers,
AD
