4 ms·

My impression has always been that drinking aged whisky was more about signalling (both financial status and knowledge and taste), including in the largest mark

by 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.
- crdb 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. Rather than write up my position on this, I will Defer To Authority and post this excellent Quora answer on signalling and its relationship with quality: https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans... (although I disagree on her premise that there is no objective difference in quality, especially when it comes to wine, but then I am a card carrying Frenchman so hardly unbiased). I particularly liked the ending: > Of course, none of this applies to me. I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful. Well, I love my Port Ellen, Karuisawa and Mortlach and I would look forward to adding Urushi Seikos or Chanel's Cuir de Russie (vintage, of course) to my collections. For their intrinsic qualities, naturally. Unfortunately, my wife does not see those intrinsic qualities as clearly as I do, so my plans have been put on hold for the moment (and, probably, all future moments).
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    You compared "aged whisky", "goodyear-welted shoes" and "suits" to things like Rolex watches, on the basis that they are all about signaling. This is like saying, because I prefer an all-wheel-drive car, it is for the same reason as buying a Ferrari, because who could possibly need a an all-wheel-drive car? Other than people who drive in the snow. Suits are warm and durable and fashionable, goodyear-welted shoes will last forever, be comfortable and weather-resistant, and aged whisky tastes different than non-aged whisky. You buy these generic categories of products for a practical reason. If you want to pay for the one that costs 10 times more than the others, that is signaling. I was going to give Johnny Walker as an example, but here's a better one: George Dickel Rye. It's fantastic, it's $26, and nobody knows it exists. It's comparable to a nice scotch. So why don't people drink this instead of scotch? Because scotch has things this doesn't, and they're willing to pay whatever it costs to get it. At a bar, though, I always buy the Dickel if it's available, because you can't beat the value.
    - 10y ago
mathattack 10y ago
I think fast aging will start to taste more and more like the defaults. There are ways to chemically alter wine to taste aged. The finest French chateaus turn their noses up on it, but most people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Scarblac 10y ago
I disagree with the idea that drinking aged whisky is necessarily about signalling, if that were the case then people would only drink it in social situations, and I do not. If fast aging manages to get the same taste in less time (surely the definition of fast aging) and lead to cheaper whiskies with the same taste, then I will definitely buy them. Anyway Scotch whisky is interesting because the supply of barley is limited. It is used in beer production as well, and is sourced from several countries that also produce lots of beer, and harvests sometimes fail. Once turned into malt whisky, it is used for two different products -- as an ingredient of blend whiskies (grain whisky can be produced in larger quantities, but is worth much less by itself than when blended with malt whisky) or aged a long time to be sold as single malt whisky. This means that while single malts Scotch is really profitable, the supply will always be limited. And that probably won't change much if the aging process is sped up, so prices probably won't go down that much.

by crdb 10y ago

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.

crdb 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. Rather than write up my position on this, I will Defer To Authority and post this excellent Quora answer on signalling and its relationship with quality: https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans... (although I disagree on her premise that there is no objective difference in quality, especially when it comes to wine, but then I am a card carrying Frenchman so hardly unbiased). I particularly liked the ending: > Of course, none of this applies to me. I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful. Well, I love my Port Ellen, Karuisawa and Mortlach and I would look forward to adding Urushi Seikos or Chanel's Cuir de Russie (vintage, of course) to my collections. For their intrinsic qualities, naturally. Unfortunately, my wife does not see those intrinsic qualities as clearly as I do, so my plans have been put on hold for the moment (and, probably, all future moments).
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  You compared "aged whisky", "goodyear-welted shoes" and "suits" to things like Rolex watches, on the basis that they are all about signaling. This is like saying, because I prefer an all-wheel-drive car, it is for the same reason as buying a Ferrari, because who could possibly need a an all-wheel-drive car? Other than people who drive in the snow. Suits are warm and durable and fashionable, goodyear-welted shoes will last forever, be comfortable and weather-resistant, and aged whisky tastes different than non-aged whisky. You buy these generic categories of products for a practical reason. If you want to pay for the one that costs 10 times more than the others, that is signaling. I was going to give Johnny Walker as an example, but here's a better one: George Dickel Rye. It's fantastic, it's $26, and nobody knows it exists. It's comparable to a nice scotch. So why don't people drink this instead of scotch? Because scotch has things this doesn't, and they're willing to pay whatever it costs to get it. At a bar, though, I always buy the Dickel if it's available, because you can't beat the value.
  - 10y ago

mathattack 10y ago

I think fast aging will start to taste more and more like the defaults. There are ways to chemically alter wine to taste aged. The finest French chateaus turn their noses up on it, but most people can't tell the difference in a blind taste test.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Scarblac 10y ago

I disagree with the idea that drinking aged whisky is necessarily about signalling, if that were the case then people would only drink it in social situations, and I do not. If fast aging manages to get the same taste in less time (surely the definition of fast aging) and lead to cheaper whiskies with the same taste, then I will definitely buy them. Anyway Scotch whisky is interesting because the supply of barley is limited. It is used in beer production as well, and is sourced from several countries that also produce lots of beer, and harvests sometimes fail. Once turned into malt whisky, it is used for two different products -- as an ingredient of blend whiskies (grain whisky can be produced in larger quantities, but is worth much less by itself than when blended with malt whisky) or aged a long time to be sold as single malt whisky. This means that while single malts Scotch is really profitable, the supply will always be limited. And that probably won't change much if the aging process is sped up, so prices probably won't go down that much.