5 ms·

The stakes are too high for this problem to be unsolved. People can accelerate the aging of wine as a chemical process. With billions on the line, people will

The stakes are too high for this problem to be unsolved. People can accelerate the aging of wine as a chemical process. With billions on the line, people will figure it out for Whiskey too. This will dramatically bring down the cost of whiskey too. First comes from simply increasing the supply. More importantly, most of the cost of whiskey is time. If I spend $5 today making a bottle of 18 year whiskey, and I have a cost of capital of 6% higher than inflation, then I'll need to sell it at $14.27 (5*1.06^18) inflation adjusted just to break even.

glup 10y ago
Even if the result is effectively the same, won't there still be a place for a small number of high-end distilleries that age things naturally? The ridiculous duration is part of the appeal of the product, and something that (some) consumers want to signal, right?
- stepvhen 10y ago
  Buffalo Trace will probably never change its ways; they have been in constant operation for over 120 years I belive (even through prohibition, selling "medicinal" whiskey). And their products are consistently fantastic. But age as a signifer of quality is archaic, as distillers have gotten much smarter about how to make a good product rather than just letting things go for a long time and hope for the best. Honestly if you're buying a bourbon older than 10 years you're overpaying for diminishing returns. Most of the best bourbons/american whiskeys I have had are right around the $40-$70 range, and most don't mention age. I feel similarly for scotch but thats far trickier territory. Source: I worked three years in an upper-scale wine and spirits shop.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Interesting claim. I don't drink bourbon, Scotch is my preference. The difference between Highland Park 12y and 18y is almost night and day. They're both lovely, but 18y is smoother and much more complex, with far more taste of the oak. 25y is almost spicy, and most definitely a sipping whisky that you want to last.
    - TylerE 10y ago
      It can be done without extreme age though. Two of my absolute favorite whiskeys are Aberlour A'bunadh and Ardbeg Uigedail. Both are non-age-stated and consist of a blend of spirits, a majority under 10 years old - but they're both fantastic whiskys, and both cheaper than just about any 15yr old, much less an 18. Of course, both are bottled at full cask strength or near it, which certainly helps.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I tasted the A'bunadh at the distillery alongside the 16, and while the no-age-statement stuff is fine, it doesn't really compare to the sherry cask stuff. I'm suspicious of no-age whiskey.
        TylerE 10y ago
        Not sure what you mean by that? A'bunadh is 100% sherry aged.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I thought it was aged in bourbon and finished in sherry. Either way, the 16 sherry cask was noticeably better.
        peterwwillis 10y ago
        Well, here's two things that I don't think has been addressed in this thread yet: 1) Virtually all commercially-produced liquor that has a flavor and isn't single cask is blended. The no-age-label is blended, the 16 is blended. The difference is in what they're blended with and how much. 2) Every study done of wine tasting involving brain scans shows that expectation modifies how taste is interpreted. So yes, to you, it totally did taste better, but not because it necessarily was better, from an objective standpoint. And at a certain level that'll be based purely on personal preference anyway.
crdb 10y ago
My impression has always been that drinking aged whisky was more about signalling (both financial status and knowledge and taste), including in the largest markets (France, etc.). Same reason people still wear suits and Goodyear-welted leather shoes for work. So there'll always be a large demand for aged stuff. If you just want to get drunk, vodka is better for hangovers and a lot cheaper. For example, a liquor trader here told me Indonesia is really into Chivas 18 year old, which is by far his largest export there. That being said, economics have made it happen already: there have been no age statements on the "basic" offering from all mass market Japanese single malts (Yamazaki, Yoichi, Taketsuru...) for a few years now because the vastly increased demand effectively emptied the stock of the 10-12 year old stuff that was previously the default. I also get the feeling that a lot of Scottish houses are cutting their product with stuff that meets the age requirement for labelling but is not as good as what their products were made of 10-15 years ago. In terms of taste, I think the "fast aged" stuff is a different product. Younger whiskies have a very different flavour profile (not necessarily inferior - try a Port Charlotte PC5-7). Can it become a new market segment, certainly - in fact it already has (e.g. Laphroaig Quarter Cask mentioned elsewhere in this thread). Replace, I'm less sure.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose. Different whisky products have different markets. There are special limited edition releases of Chivas that are only sold in Asia, for example. Same for Johnny Walker, and many other popular brands. India is crazy for Scotch, but most of its whisky is made of 90% blended neutral spirits and 10% malt whisky. It was only in the past 10 years that they produced their own, completely Indian, single malt whiskys, which are pretty good by the way. All sorts of whisky brands have been switching to No Age Specified labels for years. Eventually almost all of them will be, partly to avoid shortages, and partly to help consumers try more products from the same brand, and to fight the idea that older = better. And "as good" scotch is relative; they have always blended spirits to get the right flavor profile regardless of age statement, and they continue to do so.
  - 10y ago

glup 10y ago

Even if the result is effectively the same, won't there still be a place for a small number of high-end distilleries that age things naturally? The ridiculous duration is part of the appeal of the product, and something that (some) consumers want to signal, right?

stepvhen 10y ago
Buffalo Trace will probably never change its ways; they have been in constant operation for over 120 years I belive (even through prohibition, selling "medicinal" whiskey). And their products are consistently fantastic. But age as a signifer of quality is archaic, as distillers have gotten much smarter about how to make a good product rather than just letting things go for a long time and hope for the best. Honestly if you're buying a bourbon older than 10 years you're overpaying for diminishing returns. Most of the best bourbons/american whiskeys I have had are right around the $40-$70 range, and most don't mention age. I feel similarly for scotch but thats far trickier territory. Source: I worked three years in an upper-scale wine and spirits shop.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Interesting claim. I don't drink bourbon, Scotch is my preference. The difference between Highland Park 12y and 18y is almost night and day. They're both lovely, but 18y is smoother and much more complex, with far more taste of the oak. 25y is almost spicy, and most definitely a sipping whisky that you want to last.
  - TylerE 10y ago
    It can be done without extreme age though. Two of my absolute favorite whiskeys are Aberlour A'bunadh and Ardbeg Uigedail. Both are non-age-stated and consist of a blend of spirits, a majority under 10 years old - but they're both fantastic whiskys, and both cheaper than just about any 15yr old, much less an 18. Of course, both are bottled at full cask strength or near it, which certainly helps.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I tasted the A'bunadh at the distillery alongside the 16, and while the no-age-statement stuff is fine, it doesn't really compare to the sherry cask stuff. I'm suspicious of no-age whiskey.
      - TylerE 10y ago
        Not sure what you mean by that? A'bunadh is 100% sherry aged.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I thought it was aged in bourbon and finished in sherry. Either way, the 16 sherry cask was noticeably better.
        peterwwillis 10y ago
        Well, here's two things that I don't think has been addressed in this thread yet: 1) Virtually all commercially-produced liquor that has a flavor and isn't single cask is blended. The no-age-label is blended, the 16 is blended. The difference is in what they're blended with and how much. 2) Every study done of wine tasting involving brain scans shows that expectation modifies how taste is interpreted. So yes, to you, it totally did taste better, but not because it necessarily was better, from an objective standpoint. And at a certain level that'll be based purely on personal preference anyway.

crdb 10y ago

My impression has always been that drinking aged whisky was more about signalling (both financial status and knowledge and taste), including in the largest markets (France, etc.). Same reason people still wear suits and Goodyear-welted leather shoes for work. So there'll always be a large demand for aged stuff. If you just want to get drunk, vodka is better for hangovers and a lot cheaper. For example, a liquor trader here told me Indonesia is really into Chivas 18 year old, which is by far his largest export there. That being said, economics have made it happen already: there have been no age statements on the "basic" offering from all mass market Japanese single malts (Yamazaki, Yoichi, Taketsuru...) for a few years now because the vastly increased demand effectively emptied the stock of the 10-12 year old stuff that was previously the default. I also get the feeling that a lot of Scottish houses are cutting their product with stuff that meets the age requirement for labelling but is not as good as what their products were made of 10-15 years ago. In terms of taste, I think the "fast aged" stuff is a different product. Younger whiskies have a very different flavour profile (not necessarily inferior - try a Port Charlotte PC5-7). Can it become a new market segment, certainly - in fact it already has (e.g. Laphroaig Quarter Cask mentioned elsewhere in this thread). Replace, I'm less sure.

peterwwillis 10y ago
I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose. Different whisky products have different markets. There are special limited edition releases of Chivas that are only sold in Asia, for example. Same for Johnny Walker, and many other popular brands. India is crazy for Scotch, but most of its whisky is made of 90% blended neutral spirits and 10% malt whisky. It was only in the past 10 years that they produced their own, completely Indian, single malt whiskys, which are pretty good by the way. All sorts of whisky brands have been switching to No Age Specified labels for years. Eventually almost all of them will be, partly to avoid shortages, and partly to help consumers try more products from the same brand, and to fight the idea that older = better. And "as good" scotch is relative; they have always blended spirits to get the right flavor profile regardless of age statement, and they continue to do so.
- 10y ago