Ardbeg Perpetuum

There are two releases of Ardbeg Perpetuum; the 49.2% distillery release (DR) and the 47.4% general release (GR). The DR was released in March 2015 and the GR in May 2015. I got the opportunity to compare the two at Ballygrant Inn on Islay some days ago. Are there any differences except for the strength? How is Perpetuum compared to Arbeg 10Y? I find the GR more mature than the DR. The difference can not be explained by the strength alone. A rescue operation going on between the release of DR and GR? I find both to be immature versions of the 10Y.  I find no reason to buy the Perpetuum unless you are a fan of the Ardbeg new make. Personally I prefer a more mature version of the Ardbeg, so I dropped buying the DR when I visited the distillery for lunch. Should I buy a Perpetuum, I would keep to the GR. But the quality is far from earlier special releases like Alligator, Galileo and Ardbog. A sign of running low on mature whisky, forcing the release of substandard NAS?

No age statement (NAS)

Is NAS a good thing for whisky consumers? That depends on the quality of the whisky. What is the motivation for making a NAS whisky? Obviously utilizing the stock and maximizing the profit without destroying the company’s reputation. After all, we are talking business. It is a fair thing to provide profit for the owners. Why does NAS fly? Most whisky drinkers are not into the details of NAS. A 5-year old statement could prevent the average whisky consumer from buying the whisky. A NAS seems more exclusive. A whisky beyond age.

As long as the warehouses flowed over with aged whiskies from the 80’s, the producers told us that age matters, and yes – age matters. If you think that maturation is a good thing, it is reasonable that an older whisky is better than a younger one, at least up to a point. When matured too long, a whisky can develop unpleasant flavours. Woodiness is one such flavour.

I can see one good reason for marketing a whisky as NAS. Let us say you have an 18 year old vatting that lacks freshness, and you find this freshness in a 5 year old. Adding a small amount of the 5 year old, gives you the perfect whisky. Given the general expectation that age matters, it will be better marketing it as a NAS than a 5 year old, when it for all practical purposes is 18 years old.

However, is this how it works? My experience says no. The NAS whiskies seem often inferior. Probably because the NAS whiskies are a result of too little aged whisky, forcing the use of a larger amount of younger whiskies. Then we are back to age matters.

NAS whiskies could be a good thing, but will probably be the way into immature inferior whiskies giving less value for money. Face it, when it comes to aged whiskies, demand is larger than supply. Since age matters, NAS sounds better than 5 year old. If age did not matter, the producers would not be afraid of marketing 5 year olds.

One way to compare NAS whiskies and whiskies with an age statement, is to compare two whiskies in the same price category from the same distillery. Which one do you think is the best? My experience so far is that the one with an age statement is the best.

However, is NAS all negative? One positive effect of NAS is diversity. The master blenders get one extra degree of liberty composing their whiskies, and the knowledgeable consumer gets more opportunities to analyse the distillery character.

Looking 20 years into the future, we may have returned to a situation with warehouses filled to the rim with aged whiskies, and then again, age will matter. Meanwhile, sit down, enjoy your whisky and wait for the NAS to backfire. It probably will. The question is when.

The Glenlivet

Last night’s whisky tasting was a vertical tasting of The Glenlivet. We started with the Guardians’ triplet of Classic, Revival and Exotic.  The sherried and spicy Exotic was a clear winner, as it was worldwide. Then we went for the 12, 18 and 21 year old together with Nadurra 16 year old 48% abv – the one matured in bourbon casks. The Nadurra is more intense fruity than the 18 year old which we found more complex and balanced. Both are good whiskies, and we couldn’t decide which was the best. If you like a more sherried whisky, the 21 year old is a nice whisky. The 12 year old is light, fruity and easy drinking – one of the classical malts, and good value for money if you don’t want a challenging whisky. Then we went back to the no age statement (NAS) Guardians’ triplet. This time the new make character was pronounced. Surprisingly the Exotic turned out the big looser. The Revival was doing quite well compared to the bourbon matured, and the bourbon/sherry influenced Classic seemed more mature than the Exotic, which turned out quite immature. I am not going to buy the Guardians’ Chapter, which is the Exotic. The Glenlivet states that age matters. Yes it does. And young NAS whiskies is not the answer.