Out there in whisky consumerville right now, there are three little letters causing a stir: N.A.S. NAS whisky. But what does NAS mean? What is NAS whisky?
Neutral Alcohol Spirit?
New Amber Strathisla?
How about Non Aggressive Speysiders?
No, it’s “No age statement”. If you read the spite and vitriol from some commentators – mostly chided bloggers who feel the industry owes them something – you’d think it was the most sinful development in whisky since Robert Pattison turned to his brother Walter and asked, “Why don’t we buy some parrots?”
The story goes that aged malt is in high demand; supply is short; and bottlers want to flog younger, cheaper whisky. It’s no longer practical for a distillery portfolio’s “entry level” expression to be 12 years old, and – believe it or not – whisky is made to a price point. And so it is both simultaneously sensible and opportunistic to create blends or vattings with a large proportion of mostly young stock (say 3-7 years), add in a smaller proportion of older stock, and then bottle the new expression without an age statement, so that the whisky’s youthfulness is not apparent on the label. Shocking, isn’t it? The perpetrators should head straight to confession and say three hail Johnnie Walker Blue Labels, right?
More recent NAS releases that come to mind include Talisker Storm, Haig Club, Laphroaig Select Cask, and the Macallan 1824 series (Amber, Sienna, Ruby, etc – replaced with the equally vague “Quest Collection”). There are plenty more, but you get the point.
If you’re surprised, upset, angry, or feeling ripped off by the concept, I have two responses:
(i) Relax, the industry doesn’t care.
(ii) Relax, this ain’t new!
My first response above is not intended to sound flippant or to portray the industry as a nasty, heartless entity. But the growth and now necessary requirement of NAS releases is such a non-negotiable, that whilst the industry does indeed listen to its customers, this is one category where resistance is futile.
Further to my second response, wind the clock back to 10 years ago. Try these bottlings on for size: Bowmore Legend. Glenfarclas 105. Ardbeg Uigeadail. Aberlour a’Bunadh. Laphroaig Quarter Cask. The aforementioned Johnnie Walker Blue Label. There was no uproar or murmurings of discontent when these NAS expressions were doing the rounds years ago. So why the fuss now?
In the end, it is all just noise. And the noise will gradually peter out until the next outrage comes along. While fans of golden promise barley made noise and lamented its decreasing use amongst distillers, the industry got on with using barley that was more effective and gave greater yields. There was noise when Macallan released its Fine Oak range and shocked the world as we realised they’d had the audacity to fill their spirit into bourbon casks for all those years! Similarly, when the Scotch Whisky Association brought in the new terminology that included “blended malt”, we all made noise – which has since dissipated to hushed whispers of nodding disapproval. You can maintain the rage, but chances are, you’re missing out on some good whisky.
There are a number of associated issues in this discussion that I’ve deliberately avoided – mostly just for reasons of time and space, plus it’s all been said before by plenty of others. One good example is the discontent about the high RRP’s often being charged for some of these NAS whiskies. But this, in itself, is flawed thinking. It suggests the aggrieved folks are equating age with quality, which is a fundamental mistake from the get-go. And that may well be the topic for my next word of wisdom……
Cheers,
AD
[Got any thoughts on this? Agree or disagree? Something I’ve overlooked? Feel free to scroll down and add to the discussion]
———————-
After initially posting the above original piece, I received a comment from a reader who suggested I was missing the key foundation of the “noise” by not addressing the high prices being charged for what is often perceived to be fairly ordinary whisky.
That’s a difficult issue to address without writing a thesis, because it’s such a subjective thing. For every person who thinks Talisker Storm is vastly inferior to the regular 10yo, there are plenty who like it and who are happy with the price. I remember when Laphroaig Quarter Cask came out in Australia, and some stores sold it with a higher price tag than the regular 10yo. No one questioned it at the time, simply because we loved the whisky!
It’s true that some NAS whiskies are being sold with hefty price tags, and the contents often prove disappointing. Mind you, the same can be said about plenty of releases that do have an age statement! The number one issue here is to appreciate that when it comes to whisky, a high price tag does not necessarily guarantee high quality. If consumers are to get angry about this and make some noise, then let’s make noise about what’s IN the bottle – not what’s printed ON the bottle.
Well said Andrew. It really is just noise. The only people I really ever see getting upset about NAS are the most hardcore whisky eggheads that regularly sip Macallan 18. Albeit a small but vocal community of maltheads who dislike the idea of NAS (until they taste Uigeadail, then they don’t mind too much).
There are a few elements of whisky production that I agree we should be getting vocal about: dumping vast amounts of e150 into the bottlings, or the growth of honey whisky, but that’s a discussion for another time.
One last thing: how long then until the society removes those little age markers on the bottles? 😉 NAS-SMWS?
Great suggestion! 🙂 I reckon some NAS-SMWS bottlings would be great! Still, might be a bit tough to sort out….that’s the problem when all you do is bottle single casks!
Interesting post.
I have to say, though, that writing an article about the “nagging” surrounding NAS whisky without discussing the pricing issue is a little disingenuous.
The argument is inherently bound up with issues of price, quality, honesty and marketing bullshit. Ignoring one or more of these and blaming “chided bloggers” (and there are many, many other bloggers advocating on behalf of the industry as well, let’s not forget) or ignorance/misunderstanding about the age/quality relationship (something that the industry itself has been happy to talk up and trade on for decades up until now) all seems a little sloppy.
Similarly, listing Bowmore Legend, Glenfarclas 105, Ardbeg Uigeadail, Aberlour a’Bunadh and Laphroaig Quarter Cask as examples and wondering where all the fuss was when these were released is not just missing the point, it’s like running away from the goals altogether.
All these example were great whiskies! Of course there was no outcry against them. It’s all the crap that gets released under NAS labels – increasingly the majority – for extortionate prices that is causing all the angst. For every Uigedail there’s four Old Pulteney Lighthouse releases.
Naturally, the counter-argument simply says “Don’t buy them then”. And that’s fair enough. There is still plenty of other good whisky out there.
The issue is, I think, that whisky-lovers don’t like being bullshitted to – in the form of glossy marketing campaigns or backstories – and nor do they like being taken for fools, particularly by the distilleries who they have come to love over many years.
Of course you’re right though, no amount of rage or hand-wringing is going to change the minds of those in charge of such things. But whisky drinkers have long (if sometimes addled) memories and they’ll remember those distilleries or companies who promised gold but sold them crap.
Cheers
(Don’t worry though, I am otherwise quite relaxed!)
I LOVE this reply Diego, and thank you for posting it! And I agree that I (deliberately) avoided the issue of pricing, which I concede is where most of the angst lies. Would we hear the same fuss if the whiskies were brilliant? Would there be outcry about the extortionate prices if the whiskies tasted great? I think we (consumers, writers, whisky club members, bloggers, etc) need to simply call a spade a spade and decry the releases as bad whisky. But, in doing so, we should be upset about what is IN the bottle, rather than what’s printed ON the bottle. Cheers! 🙂